[2021] KEELC 3622 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 3622 (KLR)

The court found that the 2nd defendant/applicant failed to comply with the court's order to file an affidavit of service and written submissions on the application. As a result, the court could not determine whether the application had been served on the other parties or the reasons for the absence of a response....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 3622 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jeremiah Matoke; Defendant: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd; Defendant: William Wilhite Ayenda
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 127 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Application to Review or Set Aside Judgment and for Extension of Time
Outcome
application dismissed for want of prosecution
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Injunctions, Enforcement of Judgments, Review of Court Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Specific Performance Injunctions Enforcement of Judgments Review of Court Orders

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremiah Matoke

Plaintiff

Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd

Defendant

William Wilhite Ayenda

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Ruling on Application to Review or Set Aside Judgment and for Extension of Time

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd defendant's application for review or setting aside of the judgment and extension of time should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the application was properly prosecuted in accordance with court orders and procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 2nd defendant/applicant failed to comply with the court's order to file an affidavit of service and written submissions on the application. As a result, the court could not determine whether the application had been served on the other parties or the reasons for the absence of a response. The court viewed this as a continuation of the 2nd defendant's pattern of conduct aimed at delaying execution of the judgment. Given the lack of prosecution and non-compliance with procedural requirements, the court dismissed the application for want of prosecution, thereby upholding the finality and enforceability of its earlier judgment.

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The application dated 26/2/2021 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Costs awarded against the 2nd defendant/applicant.