[2017] KEELC 167 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 167 (KLR)

The court found that the consent entered into by the parties on 10th October 2017 was properly signed and binding upon the counsels. The court adopted the consent as its order, giving directions for the filing of responses and written submissions within specified timelines. The application dated 29th September 2017...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 167 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Ntoiti Mugambi, Emily Mutua K & Isaiah Mwitimungathia (Officials of the Isiolo Stageview Enterprises C.B.O, acting in the interest of its members); Respondent: Isiolo County Government; Respondent: The Inspector General of Police; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Constitutional Petition 14 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Order on Consent and Directions
Outcome
Consent adopted as order of the court; directions issued for further conduct of the petition.
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights Enforcement, Right to Property, Fair Administrative Action
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Land and Property Fundamental Rights Enforcement Right to Property Fair Administrative Action

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Ntoiti Mugambi, Emily Mutua K & Isaiah Mwitimungathia (Officials of the Isiolo Stageview Enterprises C.B.O, acting in the interest of its members)

Applicant

Isiolo County Government

Respondent

The Inspector General of Police

Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Order on Consent and Directions

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have contravened the petitioners' fundamental rights under the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the consent entered by the parties is valid and binding.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent entered into by the parties on 10th October 2017 was properly signed and binding upon the counsels. The court adopted the consent as its order, giving directions for the filing of responses and written submissions within specified timelines. The application dated 29th September 2017 was abandoned by consent. The court further ordered that each party shall bear its own costs. The decision was based on the principle that a consent order, once properly executed, is binding on the parties and that procedural fairness requires all parties to be given an opportunity to present their cases through written submissions.

Court Disposition

Consent adopted as order of the court; directions issued for further conduct of the petition.

Orders

  • Application of 09.10.17 marked as disposed in terms of the consent.
  • Respondents to file their response within 14 days.