[2020] KEELC 3248 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 3248 (KLR)

The court found that the application for review was properly brought under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules and Act. However, since the applicant was not present in court at the ex parte hearing, the court did not proceed to determine the substantive merits of the application. Instead, the court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 3248 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jadiel Kirongo M’Ithiano; Respondent: Julius Gatobu M’Ithiano; Respondent: Julia Mugito
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 227 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review and Directions
Outcome
Application for review not determined; directions issued for service and inter partes hearing.
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Enforcement of Court Orders, Land Subdivision, Powers of Land Registrar
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Court Orders Enforcement of Court Orders Land Subdivision Powers of Land Registrar

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jadiel Kirongo M’Ithiano

Applicant

Julius Gatobu M’Ithiano

Respondent

Julia Mugito

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review and Directions

  1. 1 Whether the court should review its ruling dated 3rd December, 2019 to substitute Meru Land Registrar with Meru District Surveyor in paragraph 13(d).
  2. 2 Whether the original order is unenforceable as issued.
  3. 3 Whether sufficient reason exists for the court to interfere with its earlier ruling.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for review was properly brought under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules and Act. However, since the applicant was not present in court at the ex parte hearing, the court did not proceed to determine the substantive merits of the application. Instead, the court directed that the application be properly served upon the respondents and set a date for inter partes hearing before another judge. The court recognized the applicant's contention that the order as issued may be unenforceable, but deferred substantive determination until all parties are heard.

Court Disposition

Application for review not determined; directions issued for service and inter partes hearing.

Orders

  • The applicant to properly serve the application upon the respondent.
  • Hearing of the application to take place before the Hon. Lady Justice Mbugua, ELC Judge, at Meru on 31.3.2020.