[2017] KEHC 4351 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 4351 (KLR)

The court declined to grant interim orders because previous interim orders had already been vacated by a prior judge, and it would be inconsistent to reinstate them. The court also refused the amendment of the originating summons, noting that the application was made eleven years after the suit was filed and that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 4351 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Emilio Marangu M'Ndiiri; Defendant: Anjero Munene Marindi; Defendant: Lawrence Antony Kinyua; Defendant: Faith Nkinga Kabucha
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 99 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Amendment of Pleadings, Expeditious Hearing, Remedies for Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Interim Injunctions Amendment of Pleadings Expeditious Hearing Remedies for Land Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emilio Marangu M'Ndiiri

Plaintiff

Anjero Munene Marindi

Defendant

Lawrence Antony Kinyua

Defendant

Faith Nkinga Kabucha

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether interim orders should be granted in favour of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend the originating summons eleven years after the suit was filed.
  3. 3 Whether damages would be a sufficient remedy if the plaintiff succeeds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to grant interim orders because previous interim orders had already been vacated by a prior judge, and it would be inconsistent to reinstate them. The court also refused the amendment of the originating summons, noting that the application was made eleven years after the suit was filed and that further amendment would only delay the resolution of the matter. The court relied on the earlier opinion that damages would be a sufficient remedy if the plaintiff succeeded, and prioritized the expeditious hearing and disposal of the suit over further interlocutory applications.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The suit will be heard on 28.09.2017.