[2020] KEHC 5955 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 5955 (KLR)

The court declined to certify the application as urgent because the applicant failed to disclose particulars of the dates when the matters complained about took place. The court emphasized that urgency must be demonstrated with specific facts. Given the COVID-19 pandemic and restricted court access, the court issued...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 5955 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: George A. Odhiambo; Defendant: Charles Indiri (Deceased)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 197 of 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Ex Parte Notice of Motion Regarding Urgency and Directions
Outcome
Application for urgency declined; directions issued for further conduct of the matter.
Legal Topics
Urgent Applications, Service of Process, Court Directions, Covid19 Measures
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Urgent Applications Service of Process Court Directions Covid19 Measures

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

George A. Odhiambo

Plaintiff

Charles Indiri (Deceased)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Ex Parte Notice of Motion Regarding Urgency and Directions

  1. 1 Whether the application should be certified as urgent in the absence of particulars of the dates of the matters complained about.
  2. 2 What directions should be given for the expeditious handling of the application during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to certify the application as urgent because the applicant failed to disclose particulars of the dates when the matters complained about took place. The court emphasized that urgency must be demonstrated with specific facts. Given the COVID-19 pandemic and restricted court access, the court issued directions for service by email and required both parties to provide email addresses for further service. The court also directed the parties to submit written suggestions on how to proceed with the application while observing Ministry of Health guidelines. The respondent was given four days from service to respond to the application.

Court Disposition

Application for urgency declined; directions issued for further conduct of the matter.

Orders

  • Application not certified as urgent.
  • Application to be set down for mention for further directions on 29th April 2020.