[2019] KEELC 1137 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 1137 (KLR)

The court found that the application for extension of the prohibition order was rendered moot because the period for which the extension was sought had already lapsed by the time of the ruling. As such, there was no live issue for the court to determine, and the application was marked as spent. The court did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 1137 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission; Respondent: Joseph Mutuku Muia; Interested Party: Family Bank Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 182 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Prohibition Order
Outcome
application marked as spent
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Prohibition Orders, Land Title Investigations, Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prohibition Orders Land Title Investigations Interlocutory Applications

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

Applicant

Joseph Mutuku Muia

Respondent

Family Bank Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Prohibition Order

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend the existing prohibition order over Machakos Block 1/623 for a further six months.
  2. 2 Whether the application for extension is spent due to lapse of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for extension of the prohibition order was rendered moot because the period for which the extension was sought had already lapsed by the time of the ruling. As such, there was no live issue for the court to determine, and the application was marked as spent. The court did not address the merits of the extension or the underlying investigations, focusing solely on the procedural fact that the orders sought could no longer be granted due to the passage of time.

Court Disposition

application marked as spent

Orders

  • The application dated 26th March, 2019 is marked as spent.
  • Each party will bear its/his own costs.