[2023] KEELC 16940 (KLR)
The court found that Swanya & Co advocates, purporting to act for the 2nd Respondent, had not filed any notice of appointment or memorandum of appearance, and the only document on record was a Replying Affidavit. Consequently, they were not properly on record and were not entitled to costs. The consent dated October...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 16940 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Philip Kitoto (Sued as the Secretary General and a Registered Trustee of Kenya Assemblies of God Church); Appellant: John Karanja Wanjengu (Sued as the Office Bearer of Kenya Assemblies of God Kariobangi River Bank Church); Respondent: Simon Kuria Wanyoike; Respondent: Nairobi City County
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E019 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Settlement and Costs
- Outcome
- Appeal marked as settled by consent; no costs awarded to 2nd Respondent.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Consent Judgment, Party Representation, Costs Award, Appeal Settlement
- 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
Philip Kitoto (Sued as the Secretary General and a Registered Trustee of Kenya Assemblies of God Church)
Appellant
John Karanja Wanjengu (Sued as the Office Bearer of Kenya Assemblies of God Kariobangi River Bank Church)
Appellant
Simon Kuria Wanyoike
Respondent
Nairobi City County
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Settlement and Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Swanya & Co advocates were properly on record for the 2nd Respondent.
- 2 Whether the 2nd Respondent is entitled to costs.
- 3 Whether the consent dated October 19, 2022 should be adopted as the judgment of the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that Swanya & Co advocates, purporting to act for the 2nd Respondent, had not filed any notice of appointment or memorandum of appearance, and the only document on record was a Replying Affidavit. Consequently, they were not properly on record and were not entitled to costs. The consent dated October 19, 2022, executed by the appellant and 1st Respondent, was adopted as the judgment of the court, settling the appeal. The appeal was accordingly marked as settled, and no costs were awarded to the 2nd Respondent.
Court Disposition
Appeal marked as settled by consent; no costs awarded to 2nd Respondent.
Orders
- The consent dated October 19, 2022 is adopted as the judgment of the court.
- The appeal is marked as settled.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Kitoto (Sued as the Secretary General and a Registered Trustee of Kenya Assemblies of God Church) & another v Wanyoike & another (Environment and Land Appeal E019 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 16940 (KLR) (20 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 16940 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment and Land Appeal E019 of 2022
LN Mbugua, J
April 20, 2023
Between
Philip Kitoto (Sued as the Secretary General and a Registered Trustee of Kenya Assemblies of God Church)
1st Appellant
John Karanja Wanjengu (Sued as the Office Bearer of Kenya Assemblies of God Kariobangi River Bank Church )
2nd Appellant
and
Simon Kuria Wanyoike
1st Respondent
Nairobi City County
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. This appeal was filed challenging the decision of the trial court in Milimani CMCC No 5493 of 2018 in relation to ownership of plot No 150 in Kariobangi. On October 25, 2022, the counsels for the appellant and 1st Respondent informed the court that they had settled all their issues, while counsel for the 2nd Respondent indicated that they were not agreeable to the settlement.
2. To this end, the parties had availed a consent dated October 19, 2022 which was not signed by the 2nd defendants advocate.
3. Since then, the matter has dragged on due to the none acceptable terms of the consent on the part of the 2nd Respondent’s advocate.
4. On March 8, 2023, counsel for the 2nd Respondent indicated that they were served with the consent only the previous day and that they were not satisfied with it.
5. In response, counsel for the appellant stated that counsel Swanya (for 2nd Respondent) had not filed any notice to act for 2nd Respondent and no such document was in the courts system, hence they were not properly on record.
6. In rejoinder, counsel Swanya stated that they had filed a memorandum of appearance but could not tell its date. They have also filed a Replying Affidavit dated June 17, 2022. their only issue was on costs.
7. The issue for determination is whether Swanya & Co advocates are properly on record and whether they should be paid costs.
8. I have perused the entire digital court record (CTS) and the only document filed by the 2nd Respondent is a Replying Affidavit dated June 17, 2022. There is no notice of appointment to act for the 2nd Respondent nor a memorandum of appearance thereof. In the circumstances and in so far as this appeal is concerned, the 2nd defendant’s advocates are not properly on record. Thus their quest for costs is unwarranted. I decline to grant any costs to the said party.
9. In line with the proceedings of October 25, 2022, the consent dated October 19, 2022 is hereby adopted as a judgment of the court in terms of the contents set out there in.
10. The appeal is marked as settled.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-M/s Kiaguthi for the ApplicantCourt assistant: Joan