[2014] KEHC 3437 (KLR)
The court found that the stay orders granted on 15th July, 2011 had lapsed as they were not extended by the applicant. The court further held that it could not give the directions sought regarding the existence of the court order or the transfer of the matter to the Environment and Land Court because the respondent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 3437 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Elizabeth Kisipan Letura; Respondent: Daniel Kishil Letura
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 181 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Directions Regarding Subsistence of Stay Orders and Transfer to Environment and Land Court
- Outcome
- Application for directions declined; applicant directed to take a date for mention for further directions.
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Orders, Land Dispute Tribunal Awards, Transfer of Suit, Subsistence of Court Orders
- 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
Elizabeth Kisipan Letura
Applicant
Daniel Kishil Letura
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Directions Regarding Subsistence of Stay Orders and Transfer to Environment and Land Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the stay orders granted on 15th July, 2011 are still subsisting or have lapsed.
- 2 Whether the court should give directions regarding the existence of the court order.
- 3 Whether the matter should be transferred to the Environment and Land Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the stay orders granted on 15th July, 2011 had lapsed as they were not extended by the applicant. The court further held that it could not give the directions sought regarding the existence of the court order or the transfer of the matter to the Environment and Land Court because the respondent had not been notified of the hearing date. The applicant was directed to take a date for mention when proper directions could be made, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness and jurisdictional requirements.
Court Disposition
Application for directions declined; applicant directed to take a date for mention for further directions.
Orders
- The court declines to give the directions sought by the applicant/6th respondent.
- The applicant is directed to take a date for mention when directions can be made transferring the matter to the Environment and Land Court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
CIVIL CASE NO. 181 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ORDER 53(1),(2), (3) & 4 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE (REVISED) RULES ,2010, SECTION 27,28 & 143 OF THE REGISTERED LAND ACT , CAP 300 SECTIONS 3,8 & 9 , LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL ACT NO. 18 OF 1990, ALL OF THE LAWS OF KENYA FOR LEAVE AND STAY TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LEAVE AND STAY OF THE RULING/AWARD DELIVERED ON 15TH JUNE, 2011 AND THE NOTICE DATED 24TH JUNE, 2011, AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT IN THE MATTER PERTAINING TO ALL THAT PARCEL OF LAND KNOWN AS LAND REFERENCE NUMBERS KAJIADO/OLORNGOSUA/27 AND KAJIADO/OLORNGOSUA/1585 LEGALLY AND ABSOLUTELY REGISTERED IN THE NAMES OF DAVID LETURA KISIPAN AND CRISPUS KISIPAN RESPECTIVELY AND WHOSE DECISION IS LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THEM THEREOF
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE APPLICANT
ELIZABETH KISIPAN LETURA.......................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DANIEL KISHIL LETURA...........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The notice of motion dated 7th August, 2012 is brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 3, 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In the application, this court has been asked to give directions that the orders granted on the 15th July, 2011 are nolonger subsisting.
3. The application is premised on the ground that court orders granted on the 15th July, 2011 have lapsed and/or have never been extended by the applicant and it is in the interest of justice that directions be given as to the existence of the court order.
4. In an affidavit in support of the application Elizabeth Letura Kisipanthe 6th respondent states that following an application for leave to apply for certiorariand prohibitionon the 15th July, 2011 the court granted an order of stay of the ruling/award delivered on the 11th June, 2011 and the notice dated 24th June, 2011. The applicants have not appeared in court to extend the order and the applicant/6th respondent is desirous to have the ruling and award adopted as the judgment of the Principal Magistrate’s Court, Kajiado.
5. The application is unopposed.
6. I have perused the record. This matter came up on the 7th March, 2013. Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Onyancha notified the court that it was a land matter. He sought an order to have it transferred toNairobi Environment and Land Courtwhich would ordinarily be seized of jurisdiction to hear such a case. The order was however not made because the respondent had not been notified of the hearing date. Thereafter the applicants fixed it for hearing but notice having not been issued no direction would issue.
7. Consequently, this court cannot purport to give directions sought by the applicant/6th Respondent. The applicant is directed to take a date for mention when directions can be made transferring the matter to the Environment and Land Court.
8. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVEREDat MACHAKOSthis 1STday ofJULY, 2014.
L.N. MUTENDE
JUDGE