[2024] KEHC 7934 (KLR)
The court found that the Applicant failed to provide evidence of having lodged the appeal in the Environment and Land Court, which was the purported reason for the delay. In the absence of such evidence, the court was not persuaded that the application was urgent. Consequently, the application was not certified as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 7934 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Were Dol; Respondent: Protas Otieno Apida
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E244 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Certification of Urgency and Directions
- Outcome
- Application not certified as urgent; directions issued for service and further steps.
- Judges
- MS Shariff
- Legal Topics
- Certification of Urgency, Service of Process, Filing of Submissions
- 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
Joseph Were Dol
Applicant
Protas Otieno Apida
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Certification of Urgency and Directions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application should be certified as urgent.
- 2 Whether sufficient evidence has been provided to explain the delay in filing the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Applicant failed to provide evidence of having lodged the appeal in the Environment and Land Court, which was the purported reason for the delay. In the absence of such evidence, the court was not persuaded that the application was urgent. Consequently, the application was not certified as urgent, and the court issued directions for service, response, and filing of submissions within specified timelines.
Court Disposition
Application not certified as urgent; directions issued for service and further steps.
Orders
- This application is not certified urgent.
- The Applicant to serve the application within 4 days from the date hereof.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
Dol v Apida (Miscellaneous Application E244 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 7934 (KLR) (1 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 7934 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Application E244 of 2024
MS Shariff, J
July 1, 2024
Between
Joseph Were Dol
Applicant
and
Protas Otieno Apida
Respondent
Ruling
1. I have considered the Applicant’s notice of motion dated 12th June 2024 and the supporting affidavit of Jared Sala sworn on even date and whereas the Applicant’s Counsel avers that the Applicant had initially lodged the appeal in the Environment and Land Court, no evidence of such filing has been adduced in the application herein wherefore I am unable to appreciate the alleged reason for delay at this instance wherefore I am not persuaded of the urgency of this application and I thus make the following directions:-1. This application is not certified urgent.
2. The Applicant to serve the same within 4 days from the date hereof.3. The Respondent to file and serve a response thereto within 9 days from the date hereof.4. The Applicant to file and serve written submissions within 17 days from the date hereof and the Respondent within 25 days from the date hereof.5. Mention on 25th July, 2024 to confirm compliance.
Dated, delivered and signed this 1st day of July, 2024. M. S. ShariffJudgeHC MISC. APP. NO. E244 OF 2024 M. S. SHARIFF J. 2 | Page