[2021] KEELC 305 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 305 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient grounds to warrant the setting aside, variation, or review of the orders made on 3rd November 2021, which dismissed their applications for want of prosecution and non-attendance. The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of cases and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 305 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Gami Quarries Limited; Plaintiff: Ramji Dhanji Gami; Defendant: Musa Fakir Mohamed; Defendant: Salhan Rahemtulla; Defendant: Saada Hyder Salim; Defendant: Aziza Hyder Salim
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 255 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Applications
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application to set aside, vary, or review the dismissal orders is dismissed with costs; inhibition to be registered on suit land; matter to proceed to full trial as scheduled.
Judges
LL Naikuni
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Reinstatement of Suit, Land Ownership Disputes, Case Management
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Reinstatement of Suit Land Ownership Disputes Case Management

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gami Quarries Limited

Plaintiff

Ramji Dhanji Gami

Plaintiff

Musa Fakir Mohamed

Defendant

Salhan Rahemtulla

Defendant

Saada Hyder Salim

Defendant

Aziza Hyder Salim

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Applications

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established sufficient grounds to set aside, vary or review the court's orders dismissing their application for want of prosecution and non-attendance.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' applications dated 18.10.2021 and 25.10.2021 should be reinstated.
  3. 3 Whether an inhibition should be registered against the suit land pending hearing and determination of the main suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient grounds to warrant the setting aside, variation, or review of the orders made on 3rd November 2021, which dismissed their applications for want of prosecution and non-attendance. The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of cases and the avoidance of unnecessary interlocutory applications that delay the main suit. The court held that the plaintiffs' application dated 4th November 2021 lacked merit and dismissed it with costs to the defendants. To preserve the subject matter, the court directed the Land Registrar to register an inhibition against the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the main...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application to set aside, vary, or review the dismissal orders is dismissed with costs; inhibition to be registered on suit land; matter to proceed to full trial as scheduled.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion application by the Plaintiff dated 4th November, 2021 is dismissed with costs to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Defendants/Respondents.
  • Unless appealed, reviewed, and/or discharged, the orders of 3rd November, 2021 subsist.