[2022] KEELC 2996 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 2996 (KLR)

The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the 3rd and 4th respondents, challenging the court's jurisdiction, is a threshold issue that must be determined before any other matters in the petition. The court therefore ordered that the preliminary objection be heard and determined on a priority basis, in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 2996 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Isaac Maurice Kibuye; Applicant: Beatrice Atieno Ochieng; Applicant: Isaiah Agwenge Odera; Respondent: Robert Arunga; Respondent: George Kidenda; Respondent: Land Registrar Rachuonyo District; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Petition 12 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Directions Before Judgment
Outcome
Preliminary objection to be heard on priority; petition fixed for directions.
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Environment and Land Court, Preliminary Objection, Boundary Disputes, Alternative Dispute Resolution
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Environment and Land Court Preliminary Objection Boundary Disputes Alternative Dispute Resolution

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

Isaac Maurice Kibuye

Applicant

Beatrice Atieno Ochieng

Applicant

Isaiah Agwenge Odera

Applicant

Robert Arunga

Respondent

George Kidenda

Respondent

Land Registrar Rachuonyo District

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Directions Before Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute as raised in the preliminary objection.
  2. 2 Whether the preliminary objection should be heard and determined before the substantive petition.
  3. 3 Whether the parties should be encouraged to pursue alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the 3rd and 4th respondents, challenging the court's jurisdiction, is a threshold issue that must be determined before any other matters in the petition. The court therefore ordered that the preliminary objection be heard and determined on a priority basis, in accordance with established legal principles and in the interest of justice. The court also directed the parties to serve the relevant documents and fixed the matter for directions, emphasizing the importance of resolving jurisdictional questions before proceeding to the merits of the petition.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection to be heard on priority; petition fixed for directions.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection dated 26th April 2018 shall take precedence and be heard on priority over all other issues in the petition.
  • The petition is fixed for directions on 6th October 2022.