[2017] KEELC 1849 (KLR)
The court held that it was procedurally improper for the Plaintiff to seek production of documents and investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations after the hearing had commenced and after she had already given her evidence-in-chief. The court emphasized the importance of judicial efficiency and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1849 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Marion Wakanyi Kamau; Defendant: Deliverance Church Registered Trustees; Defendant: Geofrey Kamau Njuguna
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 12 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
- Outcome
- Both applications dismissed with costs to the Defendants.
- Judges
- MM Gitumbi
- Legal Topics
- Production of Documents, Interlocutory Injunctions, Removal of Court Orders
- 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
Marion Wakanyi Kamau
Plaintiff
Deliverance Church Registered Trustees
Defendant
Geofrey Kamau Njuguna
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should order the production of the original Deed of Exchange dated 8th October 2008 for investigation.
- 2 Whether the Directorate of Criminal Investigations should be directed to investigate the authenticity of the Deed of Exchange.
- 3 Whether the court should set aside the temporary injunction issued against the Plaintiff on 24th July 2012.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it was procedurally improper for the Plaintiff to seek production of documents and investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations after the hearing had commenced and after she had already given her evidence-in-chief. The court emphasized the importance of judicial efficiency and the need to conclude part heard matters without unnecessary interlocutory diversions. Furthermore, the court found it lacked jurisdiction to remove an order issued in another case (CMCC No. 10578 of 2006) in the absence of an appeal. Both applications were dismissed with costs to the Defendants, and the Plaintiff was directed to fix the suit for further hearing to facilitate final...
Court Disposition
Both applications dismissed with costs to the Defendants.
Orders
- The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 3rd December 2015 is dismissed with costs to the Defendants.
- The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2015 is dismissed with costs to the Defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ELC. CASE NO. 12 OF 2011
MARION WAKANYI KAMAU………………………….…… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DELIVERANCE CHURCH
REGISTERED TRUSTEES ……………….....…....…1ST DEFENDANT
GEOFREY KAMAU NJUGUNA………….………….2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
Coming up before me for determination are two applications, namely the Notice of Motion dated 3rd December 2015 (the “First Application”) and the Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2015 (the “Second Application”), both filed by the Plaintiff. In the First Application, the Plaintiff/Applicant is seeking for the following orders:
1. That the 1st and 2nd Defendants produce the original Deed of Exchange dated 8th October 2008 to allow investigations to be conducted on it.
2. That the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to carry out investigations on the authenticity of the Deed of Exchange dated 8th October 2008 and circumstances surrounding its making and prepare and file their report in court.
3. That costs of the First Application be provided for.
In the Second Application, the Plaintiff/Applicant is seeking for an order setting aside the temporary injunction issued against her by Lady Justice Ougo on 24th July 2012 and that the entry made in the title for L.R. No. 209/9938 pursuant to a court order issued in CMCC No. 10578 of 2006 restraining the Plaintiff from evicting the Defendants in respect of L.R. No. 209/9938/2 be removed.
The prayers sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant in the First Application cannot be granted owing to the fact that the hearing of this suit commenced on 23rd May 2013 and this matter is a part heard before this court. It is too late in the day for the Plaintiff to seek production of a document and investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations at this stage when the Plaintiff has already given her evidence-in-chief. On this ground, I hereby dismiss the First Application with costs to the Defendants.
The prayers sought in the Second Application shall also not be granted by this court because this suit is part heard by this court. The court considers it a better use of judicial resources to focus on concluding this part heard suit once and for all instead of turning focus on a prayer to set aside the interim injunction subsisting herein. Further, the prayer to remove an order issued in CMCC No. 10578 of 2006 cannot be issued by this court as there is no appeal before this court. The Second Applications is accordingly similarly dismissed with costs to the Defendants.
The Plaintiff is directed to fix this part heard suit for further hearing to facilitate the full and final determination thereof.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017.
MARY M. GITUMBI
JUDGE