[2019] KEELC 3468 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents had not complied with its earlier direction to provide a valuation report by a government valuer. However, considering the applicant's advanced age and poor health, and noting that the geographical jurisdiction of the Tigania court was not in dispute, the court determined that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 3468 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Kirimania Ekabu; Respondent: Stephen M’Ikiamba; Respondent: Tabitha Laaria (Suing as legal representative of the estate of Solomon Raria M’Ethangatha); Respondent: Charity Gakii Itabari (suing as legal representative of the estate of John M’Itabari Thimangu); Respondent: James K. Akwalu; Respondent: Julius Rukioya Ekabu; Respondent: Land Adj. Officer Tigania; Respondent: The Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 11 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application allowed; miscellaneous file closed; no order as to costs
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Valuation Reports, Adjournment, Court Directions
- 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
John Kirimania Ekabu
Applicant
Stephen M’Ikiamba
Respondent
Tabitha Laaria (Suing as legal representative of the estate of Solomon Raria M’Ethangatha)
Respondent
Charity Gakii Itabari (suing as legal representative of the estate of John M’Itabari Thimangu)
Respondent
James K. Akwalu
Respondent
Julius Rukioya Ekabu
Respondent
Land Adj. Officer Tigania
Respondent
The Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents complied with the court's direction to avail a valuation report by a government valuer.
- 2 Whether the application should be allowed given the applicant's age and health.
- 3 Whether the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction can be addressed at the Tigania court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents had not complied with its earlier direction to provide a valuation report by a government valuer. However, considering the applicant's advanced age and poor health, and noting that the geographical jurisdiction of the Tigania court was not in dispute, the court determined that any issues regarding pecuniary jurisdiction could be addressed at the Tigania court. Consequently, the court allowed the application dated 22.2.2019 and marked the miscellaneous file as closed, with no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
application allowed; miscellaneous file closed; no order as to costs
Orders
- The application dated 22.2.2019 is allowed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC MISC NO. 11 OF 2019
JOHN KIRIMANIA EKABU.............................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
STEPHEN M’IKIAMBA.........................................................1ST RESPONDENT
TABITHA LAARIA (Suing as legal representative of the estate of
SOLOMON RARIA M’ETHANGATHA............................. 2ND RESPONDENT
CHARITY GAKII ITABARI (suing as legal representative of the estate of
JOHN M’ITABARI THIMANGU.........................................3RD RESPONDENT
JAMES K. AKWALU.............................................................4TH RESPONDENT
JULIUS RUKIOYA EKABU.................................................5TH RESPONDENT
LAND ADJ. OFFICER TIGANIA........................................6TH RESPONDENT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL............................................. 7TH RESPONDENT
ORDER/RULING
1. I have considered the arguments raised herein. On 28. 3.2019, the court gave directions to the effect that respondents were to avail a valuation report by a government valuer by today. They have not managed to comply with such directions for reasons contained in a letter allegedly written to the court by the government valuer.
2. I have however noted that from the word go, this application was made primarily because the applicant is very old. I have now been told that he is also sickly.
3. The geographical jurisdiction of the Tigania court is not disputed. What the respondent’s dispute is the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Tigania court.
4. It follows that, the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction can still be followed up at Tigania.
5. For now, I allow the application dated 22. 2.2019 with no orders as to costs. This miscellaneous file is marked as closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
C.P Mbaabu for applicant
Ojiambo holding brief for Miss Munga for 1st – 5th respondents
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE