[2023] KEELC 19309 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 19309 (KLR)

The court declined to grant a further adjournment to the 2nd and 3rd defendants because the reasons advanced were identical to those already considered and rejected earlier the same day. The court found no justification to revisit the issue. Regarding the plaintiff's supplementary list of documents dated May 17,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 19309 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Idow Trading Compnay Limited; Defendant: Mohammed Jimale; Defendant: Osman Ali Mohammed; Defendant: City Council Of Nairobi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 63 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Adjournment and Closure of Defence Cases
Outcome
Adjournment denied; defences of 2nd and 3rd defendants marked as closed; supplementary documents disregarded.
Judges
LN Mbugua
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Hearing, Admissibility of Documents, Closure of Case, Absence of Parties
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Adjournment of Hearing Admissibility of Documents Closure of Case Absence of Parties

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Idow Trading Compnay Limited

Plaintiff

Mohammed Jimale

Defendant

Osman Ali Mohammed

Defendant

City Council Of Nairobi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Adjournment and Closure of Defence Cases

  1. 1 Whether further adjournment should be granted to the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the supplementary list of documents filed by the plaintiff on May 17, 2023 should be considered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to grant a further adjournment to the 2nd and 3rd defendants because the reasons advanced were identical to those already considered and rejected earlier the same day. The court found no justification to revisit the issue. Regarding the plaintiff's supplementary list of documents dated May 17, 2023, the court held that since the plaintiff's case had already been closed and the evidence to be considered was given in 2018, the supplementary documents could not be introduced or considered at this stage. Consequently, the defences of the 2nd and 3rd defendants were marked as closed due to their absence and lack of witnesses, and the supplementary documents were deemed...

Court Disposition

Adjournment denied; defences of 2nd and 3rd defendants marked as closed; supplementary documents disregarded.

Orders

  • The defence of the 2nd and 3rd defendants is hereby marked as closed.
  • No further adjournment is granted.