[2025] KEELC 4065 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 4065 (KLR)

The court found that the application dated 12/2/2025 was incompetent because the order sought to be vacated, issued on 30/10/2024, had already been fully implemented and was spent after the expiry of the 14-day period for filing the intended appeal. There was no subsisting order to vacate, and the file was already...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 4065 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Teresiah Eustace Kangangi; Respondent: Anderson Mwiathi Kiriungi; Respondent: Peter Mutwiri Kiriungi; Respondent: Peter Mwenda Kiriungi; Respondent: Juliet Gakii Kiriungi; Respondent: Joseph Kirimi Kiriungi; Respondent: Leah Muthoni Kiriungi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Vacate Previous Order
Outcome
application struck out
Judges
BM Eboso
Legal Topics
Striking Out Application, Finality of Orders, Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Striking Out Application Finality of Orders Stay of Execution Appeal Procedure

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

Teresiah Eustace Kangangi

Applicant

Anderson Mwiathi Kiriungi

Respondent

Peter Mutwiri Kiriungi

Respondent

Peter Mwenda Kiriungi

Respondent

Juliet Gakii Kiriungi

Respondent

Joseph Kirimi Kiriungi

Respondent

Leah Muthoni Kiriungi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Vacate Previous Order

  1. 1 Whether the application dated 12/2/2025 seeking to vacate the ruling/order of 30/10/2024 is tenable in law.
  2. 2 Whether there was any subsisting order capable of being vacated at the time of the application.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded given the circumstances of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application dated 12/2/2025 was incompetent because the order sought to be vacated, issued on 30/10/2024, had already been fully implemented and was spent after the expiry of the 14-day period for filing the intended appeal. There was no subsisting order to vacate, and the file was already finalized. As such, the relief sought was not available, and the application was struck out. The court further held that, given the circumstances, no order as to costs would be made.

Court Disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • The application dated 12/2/2025 is struck out.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.