[2021] KEELC 2896 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 2896 (KLR)

The court found that the appointment of the mediator was not done suo moto, but rather with the agreement of the parties, who had initially consented to mediation to resolve the dispute. However, since the applicant later repudiated the agreement and objected to the mediation process, the court held that it could...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 2896 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Malit Naeku & 60 Others; Defendant: Nkurunnah Ole Masikonde & 7 Others
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 44 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Stay and Expunge Mediation Proceedings
Outcome
application allowed in part
Judges
MN Kullow
Legal Topics
Court Mandated Mediation, Mediator Accreditation, Jurisdiction of Court, Res Judicata, Variation of Orders, Land Dispute Resolution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Alternative Dispute Resolution Court Mandated Mediation Mediator Accreditation Jurisdiction of Court Res Judicata Variation of Orders +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Malit Naeku & 60 Others

Plaintiff

Nkurunnah Ole Masikonde & 7 Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Stay and Expunge Mediation Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of the mediator was irregular and contrary to the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the mediator was properly accredited and listed by the court.
  3. 3 Whether the mediation process and resulting report should be stayed, suspended, or expunged.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appointment of the mediator was not done suo moto, but rather with the agreement of the parties, who had initially consented to mediation to resolve the dispute. However, since the applicant later repudiated the agreement and objected to the mediation process, the court held that it could not compel unwilling parties to continue with mediation. The court therefore found it reasonable to halt the mediation process, varied its previous orders, and expunged the proceedings and report filed by the mediator. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

application allowed in part

Orders

  • The mediation process is halted.
  • The court's orders of 16/12/2020 are varied.