[2025] KEELC 3008 (KLR)
The court found that there was no valid reason to reject the consent for change of advocates, and thus granted the prayer for its adoption. However, the prayers for stay of execution were rendered moot and spent by the time of the ruling, as the application had already been heard and determined. The court therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 3008 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Majani Estate Limited; Defendant: Muthoni Nkonge; Defendant: Muriuki Ndubi; Defendant: Saulu Ndiga; Defendant: Kariba Kanampiu; Defendant: Mwirigi Miriti; Defendant: Mugendi Kainyati; Defendant: Paul Kinyua Riungu; Defendant: Mwiti Riungu; Defendant: Benedictine Njiru Riungu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 8 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Stay and Change of Advocates
- Outcome
- Application partially allowed; consent for change of advocates adopted; all other prayers spent; applicants to bear costs.
- Judges
- BM Eboso
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Change of Advocates, Post Judgment Applications
- 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
Majani Estate Limited
Plaintiff
Muthoni Nkonge
Defendant
Muriuki Ndubi
Defendant
Saulu Ndiga
Defendant
Kariba Kanampiu
Defendant
Mwirigi Miriti
Defendant
Mugendi Kainyati
Defendant
Paul Kinyua Riungu
Defendant
Mwiti Riungu
Defendant
Benedictine Njiru Riungu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Stay and Change of Advocates
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should adopt the consent for post-judgment change of advocates for the 5th, 6th, and 8th defendants.
- 2 Whether the application for stay of execution of the judgment and decree is merited after the hearing of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no valid reason to reject the consent for change of advocates, and thus granted the prayer for its adoption. However, the prayers for stay of execution were rendered moot and spent by the time of the ruling, as the application had already been heard and determined. The court therefore marked those prayers as spent and ordered the applicants to bear the costs of the application.
Court Disposition
Application partially allowed; consent for change of advocates adopted; all other prayers spent; applicants to bear costs.
Orders
- Prayer 2 for adoption of consent for change of advocates is granted as prayed.
- Prayers 1, 3, 4, and 5 are marked as spent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
Majani Estate Limited v Nkonge & 8 others (Environment & Land Case 8 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 3008 (KLR) (25 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3008 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Environment & Land Case 8 of 2020
BM Eboso, J
March 25, 2025
Between
Majani Estate Limited
Plaintiff
and
Muthoni Nkonge
1st Defendant
Muriuki Ndubi
2nd Defendant
Saulu Ndiga
3rd Defendant
Kariba Kanampiu
4th Defendant
Mwirigi Miriti
5th Defendant
Mugendi Kainyati
6th Defendant
Paul Kinyua Riungu
7th Defendant
Mwiti Riungu
8th Defendant
Benedictine Njiru Riungu
9th Defendant
Ruling
1. Falling for determination in this ruling is the application dated 13/12/2024 brought by the 5th, 6th and 8th defendants. Through it, the three (3) defendants seek the following verbatim reliefs:1. That the matter be certified urgent and service be dispensed with in the first instance.2. That an order do issue adopting the consent of change of advocates dated 20th November, 2024. 3.That the judgment entered on 29th November, 2021, the decree and all other subsequent orders thereto to be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the application iter-parties.4. That there be a stay of execution of the judgment delivered on the 29th November, 2021, the decree and all other subsequent orders against the 5th, 6th & 8th defendants/applicants pending the hearing and determination of the application inter-parties.5. That there be a stay of execution of the judgment delivered on the 29th November 2021, the decree and all other subsequent orders against the 5th, 6th & 8th defendants/applicants pending the hearing and determination of the application.6. That the costs of the application be in the cause.
2. From a plain reading of the above reliefs, it is clear that there are two limbs of the reliefs. The first limb is a plea for an order adopting a consent relating to a post-judgment change of advocates. No proper ground has been put forth to warrant a rejection of the consent that has been presented to the court allowing the three defendants to effect a post-judgment change of advocates. Consequently, prayer 2 of the notice of motion dated 13/12/2024 will be granted as prayed.
3. The second limb of the application comprises of prayers 3, 4 and 5. They all relate to orders of stay of execution of the judgment and decree and all subsequent orders issued in this cause, pending the hearing and determination of the application. The application has been heard and now falls for determination in this ruling. The tenor and import of the above three reliefs is that, they are all spent at this point of rendering a ruling on the application. Put differently, there is no relief that is sought in the application post the hearing and determination of the application.
4. Given the above circumstances, prayers 1, 3, 4 and 5 are all spent. The Court will say no more. The applicants will bear costs of the application.
5. In the end, the application dated 13/12/2024 is disposed in the following terms.a.Prayer 2 relating to adoption of the consent relating to post-judgment change of advocates is granted as prayed.b.Prayers 1,3,4 and 5 are marked “spent”.c.The applicants shall bear costs of the application.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT CHUKA THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. B M EBOSO [MR]JUDGEIn the Presence of:Mrs. Mutegi for the PlaintiffMr. Karanja for the 5th, 6th and 8th DefendantsCourt Assistant – Moses