[2020] KEELC 3613 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 3613 (KLR)

The court found that the suit had been struck out and no appeal was pending. The plaintiffs, having lodged a caution on the suit land pending the outcome of the case, had not opposed the application for its removal. The court was satisfied that the application was properly served and that the applicants had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 3613 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Eunice Wawira Githinji; Plaintiff: Benjamin Kinyua Githinji; Defendant: Patrick Nyamu Kiura; Defendant: Anne Wanjiru Githinji; Defendant: Dorcas Wangechi Githinji; Defendant: Sarah Wambura Githinji; Defendant: Danson Muchiri Kagau; Defendant: Joseph Muchiri Kiburi; Defendant: Purity Njeri Githinji; Defendant: Teresia Watiri Wandiga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 56 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Withdraw Advocates and Remove Restriction
Outcome
application allowed as prayed with costs to the applicants
Legal Topics
Removal of Caution, Withdrawal of Advocate, Land Restriction, Finalization of Suit
Source Language
en
Land and Property Removal of Caution Withdrawal of Advocate Land Restriction Finalization of Suit

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eunice Wawira Githinji

Plaintiff

Benjamin Kinyua Githinji

Plaintiff

Patrick Nyamu Kiura

Defendant

Anne Wanjiru Githinji

Defendant

Dorcas Wangechi Githinji

Defendant

Sarah Wambura Githinji

Defendant

Danson Muchiri Kagau

Defendant

Joseph Muchiri Kiburi

Defendant

Purity Njeri Githinji

Defendant

Teresia Watiri Wandiga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Withdraw Advocates and Remove Restriction

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be granted leave to withdraw their advocates on record.
  2. 2 Whether the restriction/caution lodged on land parcel KABARE/MIKARARA/562 should be removed following the conclusion of the suit.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded to the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suit had been struck out and no appeal was pending. The plaintiffs, having lodged a caution on the suit land pending the outcome of the case, had not opposed the application for its removal. The court was satisfied that the application was properly served and that the applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the orders sought. In the absence of any opposition, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application as prayed, including the withdrawal of the advocates on record and the removal of the restriction on the suit property.

Court Disposition

application allowed as prayed with costs to the applicants

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the defendants to withdraw the firm of Ikahu Nganga & Co. Advocates as their advocates on record.
  • The restriction/caution lodged on land parcel KABARE/MIKARARA/562 is hereby removed.