[2017] KEELC 200 (KLR)
The court found that although the respondents filed their Replying Affidavit one day late, the delay was not inordinate. Exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court admitted the Replying Affidavit to the record, emphasizing that the overriding objective is to do justice and that minor procedural lapses should...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 200 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Kiogora Kirimania; Defendant: Miringu Muchai Ikabu; Defendant: Peter Maina
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 161 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property / Interlocutory Ruling on Late Filing of Replying Affidavit
- Outcome
- Replying Affidavit admitted to the record despite late filing.
- Legal Topics
- Late Filing of Affidavit, Court Directions, Inherent Jurisdiction, Procedural Compliance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Kiogora Kirimania
Plaintiff
Miringu Muchai Ikabu
Defendant
Peter Maina
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property / Interlocutory Ruling on Late Filing of Replying Affidavit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should admit the Replying Affidavit filed out of time by the respondents.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the Replying Affidavit was inordinate and prejudicial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the respondents filed their Replying Affidavit one day late, the delay was not inordinate. Exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court admitted the Replying Affidavit to the record, emphasizing that the overriding objective is to do justice and that minor procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights where no prejudice is caused. The court relied on precedent affirming its discretion to admit late documents in the interest of justice.
Court Disposition
Replying Affidavit admitted to the record despite late filing.
Orders
- The Replying Affidavit filed by the respondents is admitted to the record.
- Directions are given for the application to be canvassed by way of filing submissions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 161 OF 2017
DAVID KIOGORA KIRIMANIA…………………………….....….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MIRINGU MUCHAI IKABU………..........1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
PETER MAINA…………………………2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
I find that on 9. 10. 17 the court gave clear directions that the respondent was to file and serve their response within 7 days from 9. 10. 17. The response has not been filed and served within the given time. The Replying Affidavit was filed and served today. They (Respondents) are late with just one day. This court retains the inherent jurisdiction to make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice (See Interactive Ganning and Lotteries Limited VS Flint East Africa and 2 Others NBI HCC 115 OF 2011).
I proceed to allow the Replying Affidavit to be part of the record in view of the fact that the delay in filing is not inordinate.
Hon. L.N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE
P.K Kamau: We can file submissions.
Court: Directions are given for the application to be canvassed by way of filing submissions.
Mention on 4. 12. 17 for submissions.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT MERU THIS 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C:A Janet
P.K. Kamau for Plaintiff present
Omari H/B FOR Manene for Respondent Present
Hon. L.N.MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE