[2017] KEELC 1775 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1775 (KLR)

The court found that the prayers sought by the plaintiff in the plaint do not fall within the scope of Order 10 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs the entry of interlocutory judgment. Specifically, the reliefs sought are not for a liquidated demand, detention of goods, or recovery of land in the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 1775 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Magambo Thambo; Defendant: Dickson Kirimi Ikiara; Defendant: DLASO Meru South/Maara Sub County; Defendant: Hon. Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 87 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Leave to Request Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Judgment, Order 10 Rule 6, Ownership of Land, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interlocutory Judgment Order 10 Rule 6 Ownership of Land Service of Process

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Magambo Thambo

Plaintiff

Dickson Kirimi Ikiara

Defendant

DLASO Meru South/Maara Sub County

Defendant

Hon. Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Leave to Request Interlocutory Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to leave to request for interlocutory judgment against the 2nd and 3rd defendants under Order 10 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the prayers sought in the plaint fall within the scope of interlocutory judgment provisions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the prayers sought by the plaintiff in the plaint do not fall within the scope of Order 10 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs the entry of interlocutory judgment. Specifically, the reliefs sought are not for a liquidated demand, detention of goods, or recovery of land in the manner contemplated by the rule. As such, the application for leave to request interlocutory judgment against the 2nd and 3rd defendants lacks merit and is dismissed. The court further granted the 2nd and 3rd defendants seven days to file their documents and the plaintiff seven days to serve the next date for directions upon the 1st defendant. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 22nd August 2017 is dismissed.
  • The 2nd and 3rd defendants are granted 7 days to file apposite documents.