[2017] KEELC 3738 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant had repeatedly failed to comply with its pre-trial directions, despite being granted sufficient time since November 2014. The court emphasized the mandatory duty imposed by Section 1A(3) of the Civil Procedure Act on parties and their advocates to assist the court in achieving the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3738 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Fredrick Baariu M'Imathiu & 111 Others; Defendant: County Council of Nyambene
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 62 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Suit / Ruling on Compliance With Pre Trial Directions
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time for compliance by the defendant is declined.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Pre Trial Compliance, Case Management, Court Directions, Overriding Objective
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Fredrick Baariu M'Imathiu & 111 Others
Plaintiff
County Council of Nyambene
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Suit / Ruling on Compliance With Pre Trial Directions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant has complied with the court's pre-trial directions as required under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the defendant should be granted more time to comply with the court's orders.
- 3 What are the consequences of non-compliance with court directions under the Civil Procedure Act and Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant had repeatedly failed to comply with its pre-trial directions, despite being granted sufficient time since November 2014. The court emphasized the mandatory duty imposed by Section 1A(3) of the Civil Procedure Act on parties and their advocates to assist the court in achieving the overriding objective, which includes timely compliance with directions. The court further relied on Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution, which mandates that justice shall not be delayed. Given the defendant's persistent non-compliance and lack of justification, the court exercised its discretion to decline any further extension of time for compliance. The court determined...
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time for compliance by the defendant is declined.
Orders
- The defendant is denied further time to comply with pre-trial directions.
- The court will proceed to give directions on how the case will proceed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
ELC SUIT NO 62 OF 2012
FREDRICK BAARIU M'IMATHIU & 111 OTHERS...........................PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
COUNTY COUNCIL OF NYAMBENE...............................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The matter is coming up today to confirm if parties have complied with Order 11. I find that way back on 25:11:14, the issue of compliance was dealt with whereby the Court had given each side 30 days to comply. More than two years down the line, the Court has been dealing with the issue of NON COMPLIANCE on the part of defendant. I find that all parties are called upon to comply with Courts directions as is clearly spelt out under Section 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Rules. In particular, this Court makes reference to the provisions of Section 1 A (3) where it is stated that:-
“ a party to Civil proceedings or an Advocate for such a party is under a duty to assist the Court to further the overriding objective of the Act and to that effect to participate in the processes of the Court and to comply with the directions and other orders of the Court”.
The aforementioned provisions of the Act do assist the Court to carry out its mandate in line with the provisions of Article 159 2(b) of the Constitution “ Justice shall not be denied”. The Court also makes reference to the case; Civil Application No. 6 of 2010 Between Hunker Trading Company Limited and ELF OIL Kenya Limited Nairobi where the issue of compliance was raised.
In right of the foregoing, I find that defence has failed in complying with Courts orders particularly to order of 29:11:10. I therefore decline the grant to defence more time to comply. The Court will proceed to give directions on how the case will proceed.
RULING IS READ IN OPEN COURT THIS 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
CA: Dalphine
Miss Rimita for Plaintiffs
Munene for Defendant
L.N. MBUGUA
JUDGE