[2023] KEELC 16290 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 16290 (KLR)

The court determined that since part of the prayers sought in the application dated September 29, 2022 had already been issued by ELC No 2, and both applications were seeking almost similar orders, it would be appropriate for ELC No 2 to conclude the matter. The court also noted that the parties had failed to comply with directions regarding the filing of written submissions, and no sufficient reason was provided for the non-compliance. In the interest of judicial economy and to avoid conflicting decisions, the court directed that the matter be mentioned before ELC No 2 for further directions, thereby declining to write the scheduled ruling.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 16290 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Mathew Gituma; Respondent: Cosmas Murungi Thambo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
15 March 2023
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E121 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Directions
Outcome
Matter referred to ELC No 2 for further directions; ruling not delivered as scheduled.
Judges
CK Yano
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Rent Arrears, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Rent Arrears Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathew Gituma

Appellant

Cosmas Murungi Thambo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applications dated July 29, 2022 and September 15, 2022 should be determined by this court or ELC No 2.
  2. 2 Whether the parties complied with the court's directions regarding filing of written submissions.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should proceed based on affidavits on record or be transferred for further directions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that since part of the prayers sought in the application dated September 29, 2022 had already been issued by ELC No 2, and both applications were seeking almost similar orders, it would be appropriate for ELC No 2 to conclude the matter. The court also noted that the parties had failed to comply with directions regarding the filing of written submissions, and no sufficient reason was provided for the non-compliance. In the interest of judicial economy and to avoid conflicting decisions, the court directed that the matter be mentioned before ELC No 2 for further directions, thereby declining to write the scheduled ruling.

Court Disposition

Matter referred to ELC No 2 for further directions; ruling not delivered as scheduled.

Orders

  • The matter is to be mentioned before ELC No 2 on a date to be given by that court for further directions.
  • No ruling will be delivered by this court as earlier scheduled.