[2024] KEHC 9224 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 9224 (KLR)

The court held that the respondents were not in default as the time for filing their replies had not expired, and at least one respondent had already filed. The right to be heard is a constitutional imperative, and the court cannot deny the respondents this opportunity. The applicants failed to specify when the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 9224 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Eunice Saoina Marima; Plaintiff: Piaro Ole Norpoor; Plaintiff: Mike Ole Maria; Defendant: Purko Development Trust; Defendant: Chairman Purko Development Trust; Defendant: Seleila Ole Mwanik; Defendant: The Government Narok County; Defendant: Narok North Member of Parliament
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit E005 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Application for Urgent Relief
Outcome
Application for urgent relief declined; matter to proceed to inter partes hearing.
Judges
F Gikonyo
Legal Topics
Right to Be Heard, Fair Hearing, Urgent Relief, Default Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Right to Be Heard Fair Hearing Urgent Relief Default 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eunice Saoina Marima

Plaintiff

Piaro Ole Norpoor

Plaintiff

Mike Ole Maria

Plaintiff

Purko Development Trust

Defendant

Chairman Purko Development Trust

Defendant

Seleila Ole Mwanik

Defendant

The Government Narok County

Defendant

Narok North Member of Parliament

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Application for Urgent Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are in default for failing to file replies within the prescribed time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to urgent relief restraining the holding of elections.
  3. 3 Whether the right to be heard under the Constitution precludes denial of opportunity to file replies.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondents were not in default as the time for filing their replies had not expired, and at least one respondent had already filed. The right to be heard is a constitutional imperative, and the court cannot deny the respondents this opportunity. The applicants failed to specify when the elections might be held, undermining the urgency of their application. Mere apprehension of possible elections is insufficient to justify urgent relief. Accordingly, the respondents should be allowed to file their replies, and the matter should proceed to inter partes hearing.

Court Disposition

Application for urgent relief declined; matter to proceed to inter partes hearing.

Orders

  • Respondents to file their replies as ordered.
  • Matter to be set down for inter partes hearing.