[2018] KEELC 2467 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 2467 (KLR)

The court found that the prohibitory orders issued on 24.5.2017 and extended on 23.11.2017 had lapsed as of 24.5.2018, and thus were spent. Since the statutory period for the orders had expired and no further extension was sought or granted, there was no legal basis for the orders to remain in force. The respondent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 2467 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC); Respondent: Peter Mareteh Muginga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 14 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Discharge Prohibitory Orders
Outcome
application allowed; prohibitory orders discharged
Legal Topics
Prohibitory Orders, Anti Corruption Proceedings, Land Title Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Administrative Law Prohibitory Orders Anti Corruption Proceedings Land Title 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

Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC)

Applicant

Peter Mareteh Muginga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Discharge Prohibitory Orders

  1. 1 Whether the prohibitory orders issued on 24.5.2017 and extended on 23.11.2017 should be discharged as spent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to variation or discharge of the orders under section 56 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the prohibitory orders issued on 24.5.2017 and extended on 23.11.2017 had lapsed as of 24.5.2018, and thus were spent. Since the statutory period for the orders had expired and no further extension was sought or granted, there was no legal basis for the orders to remain in force. The respondent was entitled to seek discharge of the orders, and the court accordingly declared them spent and discharged. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

application allowed; prohibitory orders discharged

Orders

  • The orders given on 24.5.2017 are declared as spent and hence discharged.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.