[2017] KEHC 795 (KLR)
The court was unable to deliver a substantive ruling on the preliminary objections and applications due to procedural issues regarding the submissions filed by the parties. The court noted that the submissions addressed different applications and preliminary objections, leading to a lack of clarity. As a result, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 795 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Isaiah Mbaabu (suing through Athimaba clan); Applicant: Pasqure Muketha (suing through Athimaba clan); Applicant: Ibrahim Karani (suing through Nkula Clan); Respondent: The Land & Settlement Officer South District; Respondent: Hon Attorney General; Respondent: Kobia Baimuri; Respondent: Mate Kaberia Baibiri; Respondent: Paul Solomon Miriti
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition 2 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Applications; Ruling Deferred
- Outcome
- Ruling deferred; further clarification directed to counsel.
- Legal Topics
- Constitutional Rights Enforcement, Preliminary Objection, Land Settlement 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
Isaiah Mbaabu (suing through Athimaba clan)
Applicant
Pasqure Muketha (suing through Athimaba clan)
Applicant
Ibrahim Karani (suing through Nkula Clan)
Applicant
The Land & Settlement Officer South District
Respondent
Hon Attorney General
Respondent
Kobia Baimuri
Respondent
Mate Kaberia Baibiri
Respondent
Paul Solomon Miriti
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Applications; Ruling Deferred
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the preliminary objections raised by the respondents are meritorious and should be upheld.
- 2 Whether the applications dated 12.03.14 and 12.05.14 are properly before the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court was unable to deliver a substantive ruling on the preliminary objections and applications due to procedural issues regarding the submissions filed by the parties. The court noted that the submissions addressed different applications and preliminary objections, leading to a lack of clarity. As a result, the court deferred its ruling and directed counsel for the parties to seek further clarification to ensure proper adjudication of the issues raised.
Court Disposition
Ruling deferred; further clarification directed to counsel.
Orders
- Ruling on preliminary objections and applications is deferred.
- Counsel for the parties to seek further clarification as directed by the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 2 OF 2004
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF CONSTITUTION RIGHTS FREEDOMS AND GUARANTEES UNDER ARTICLE 22. 40(B) & 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
ISAIAH MBAABU (suing through athimaba clan..........................1ST PETITIONER
PASQURE MUKETHA (suing through Athimaba clan.................2nd PETITIONER
IBRAHIM KARANI( Suing through Nkula Clan............................3RD PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE LAND & SETTLEMENT OFFICER SOUTH DISTRICT....1ST RESPONDENT
HON ATTORNEY GENRAL...........................................................2ND RESPONDENT
KOBIA BAIMURI................................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
MATE KABERIA BAIBIRI..................................................................4TH RESPONDENT
PAUL SOLOMON MIRITI.....................................................................5TH RESPONDNET
R U L I N G
On 19. 07. 17 the Court gave directions to the effect that the Ruling on two Preliminary Objections be delivered on 11. 10. 17 Respondents were directed to file Submissions by the close of business on that day. The submissions filed by the petitioners are in respect of Preliminary Objection of 09:04:2014 and the application of 12. 03. 14.
For the 3rd -4th and 5th Respondent, their Submissions are in respect of the Preliminary Objection of 09:04:14 and the application dated 12. 05. 14.
Against this background, the Court is not able to deliver a ruling. Counsels representing the parties herein are given further clarification.
DELIVERED, SIGNED AND DATED AT MERU THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
CA: Janet
HON. L.N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE