[2019] KEELC 672 (KLR)
The court held that since the miscellaneous file was marked as closed, the applicant could not import and prosecute the same application in the main file. Additionally, the applicant failed to clarify whether the previous application for removal of inhibition was heard or not. As a result, there was nothing before...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 672 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Meru Bakers Ltd; Respondent: Fredrick M’Kithinji; Respondent: Josphat Kirigia
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 165 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reconstruction and Inhibition
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- File Reconstruction, Inhibition Orders, Land Disputes
- 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
Meru Bakers Ltd
Applicant
Fredrick M’Kithinji
Respondent
Josphat Kirigia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reconstruction and Inhibition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for inhibition can be prosecuted in the main file after closure of the miscellaneous file.
- 2 Whether there is any substantive application before the court for determination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the miscellaneous file was marked as closed, the applicant could not import and prosecute the same application in the main file. Additionally, the applicant failed to clarify whether the previous application for removal of inhibition was heard or not. As a result, there was nothing before the court to determine in the main file, and the application could not proceed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- There is nothing before the court to determine in file no. 165 of 2001.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 165 OF 2001
FREDRICK M’KITHINJI...............................................1ST RESPONDENT
JOSPHAT KIRIGIA........................................................2ND RESPONDENT
VERSUS
MERU BAKERS LTD.................................................................APPLICANT
RULING
1. The original file no. Meru ELC 165 of 2001 is lost or cannot be found which situation triggered the filing of ELC Misc. 80 of 2016. Vide an application dated 21. 9.2016, in the miscellaneous file, orders were sought for reconstruction of the file no. 165 of 2001 and an order of inhibition restraining any dealings in land parcel no. Meru/Municipality/Block II/51. Vide the ruling dated 12. 7.2018, the prayer for reconstruction of the file was allowed leaving the issue of inhibition undetermined.
2. Having marked the miscellaneous file no. 80/16 as closed, then the applicant cannot purport to import and prosecute the same application in file no. 165/01. Furthermore, I note that previously, similar orders for removal of inhibition have been made via an application dated 15. 12. 2009. The applicants ought to shed light on whether the said application was heard or not. As at now, I find that there is nothing before this court to determine in the file no. 165 of 2001. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 27TH NOVEMBER, 2019
IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
Ayub holding brief for Ngunjiri for applicant
Muthomi K. holding brief for Ondari for respondents
1st respondent
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE