[2020] KEELC 637 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 637 (KLR)

The court held that the defendant's application for recusal and setting aside of orders was incompetent because it was filed without the requisite leave of court, in direct contravention of a prior case management order. The court emphasized that the order requiring leave was not made lightly but was necessitated by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 637 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Eunice Mugure Muchori; Plaintiff: Ibrahim Baiya Muchori; Plaintiff: Jim B. Muchori; Defendant: Peter Macharia Kariuki
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 34 of 1998
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Recusal and Setting Aside Orders
Outcome
application struck out as incompetent
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judge, Leave of Court, Case Management Orders, Striking Out Applications
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Recusal of Judge Leave of Court Case Management Orders Striking Out 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

Eunice Mugure Muchori

Plaintiff

Ibrahim Baiya Muchori

Plaintiff

Jim B. Muchori

Plaintiff

Peter Macharia Kariuki

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Recusal and Setting Aside Orders

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's application for recusal and setting aside orders is competent having been filed without leave of court as previously ordered.
  2. 2 Whether the court should entertain an application brought in contravention of its own case management orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant's application for recusal and setting aside of orders was incompetent because it was filed without the requisite leave of court, in direct contravention of a prior case management order. The court emphasized that the order requiring leave was not made lightly but was necessitated by the defendant's apparent intent to delay the hearing of the oldest case at the station. Since the application did not seek or obtain leave, the court was expressly barred from considering its merits. The application was therefore struck out with costs to the plaintiffs, and previous directions remained in effect, with timelines to run from the date of the ruling.

Court Disposition

application struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • The application dated 24/8/2020 is struck out with costs to the plaintiffs.
  • The court's directions made on 30/7/2020 remain in effect, with compliance timelines commencing from the date of this ruling.