[2018] KEELC 1801 (KLR)
The court found that the Petitioner failed to file written submissions as directed, resulting in the Petition remaining unprosecuted. In accordance with procedural law and the court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and ensure expeditious disposal of cases, the Petition was dismissed for want of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 1801 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Easy Properties Limited; Respondent: The Sub-County Administrator, Mavoko Town; Respondent: The Machakos County Government; Respondent: Express Connections Ltd; Respondent: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition 34 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Planning Permission, Ultra Vires Actions, Natural Justice, Land Development, Local Authority Powers
- 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
Easy Properties Limited
Applicant
The Sub-County Administrator, Mavoko Town
Respondent
The Machakos County Government
Respondent
Express Connections Ltd
Respondent
Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the notice issued by the 1st Respondent on 2nd April, 2015 was ultra vires, illegal, irrational, and in breach of the rules of natural justice.
- 2 Whether the Petitioner developed the suit land without the requisite development permission under the Physical Planning Act.
- 3 Whether the Petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Petitioner failed to file written submissions as directed, resulting in the Petition remaining unprosecuted. In accordance with procedural law and the court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and ensure expeditious disposal of cases, the Petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. The merits of the substantive claims regarding the legality of the notice and alleged breaches of the Physical Planning Act were not determined due to the procedural default by the Petitioner.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The Petition dated 12th November, 2015 is dismissed with costs for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CONST. PETITION NO.34 OF 2015
EASY PROPERTIES LIMITED.........................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE SUB-COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR,
MAVOKO TOWN........................................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE MACHAKOS COUNTY GOVERNMENT.....2ND RESPONDENT
AND
EXPRESS CONNECTIONS LTD ................1ST INTERESTED PARTY
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.........2ND INTERESTED PARTY
JUDGMENT
1. On 16th November, 2015, the Petitioner herein filed a Petition in which it alleged that it developed a parcel of land known as L.R. No. 12715/522 which it sold to Express Connections Limited; that the 1st Respondent issued a notice in regard to the suit land purporting to exercise powers which it did not have and that the directions of the Respondents were ultra vires, illegal, irrational and in breach of the rules of natural justice.
2. In the prayers, the Petitioner sought for a declaration that the notice that was issued on 2nd April, 2015 by the 1st Respondent is null, illegal and void. The Petitioner also sought for the costs of the Petition.
3. The 2nd Respondent’s Chief Legal Officer filed a Replying Affidavit in which he opposed the Petition. According to the 2nd Respondent, the Petitioner breached the provisions of the Physical Planning Act by developing the suit land without a development permission granted by the local authority, amongst other breaches.
4. On 15th March, 2018, the court directed that the Petition to proceed by way of written submissions. However, the Petitioner’s advocate did not file the written submissions as directed by the court. It is only the advocate for the 2nd Interested Party who filed his submissions.
5. Having failed to file submissions, I find that the Petition herein remains unprosecuted. Consequently, the Petition dated 12th November, 2015 is dismissed with costs for want of prosecution.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE