[2020] KEELC 2541 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 2541 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiffs were aware of the hearing dates and the withdrawal of their advocate, and were properly served with notices. The Plaintiffs failed to act diligently in appointing new counsel and did not provide sufficient evidence of third-party interests or errors apparent on the face of the record. The court held that the issues raised by the Plaintiffs were matters for appeal, not review, as they required reappraisal of evidence rather than correction of a clear error. The court also noted that the Plaintiffs had already filed a Notice of Appeal, making their application for review procedurally improper. The application for stay of execution was denied due to lack...

Citation
[2020] KEELC 2541 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Marituai Karingithe (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Karkise Ole Mosiro); Plaintiff: Boman Mosiro; Plaintiff: Elijah Mosiro; Defendant: Simon Ndungu Supeyo; Defendant: Joseph Crespers Supeyo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
21 May 2020
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 372 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Application / Ruling on Application for Review, Stay of Execution, and Change of Advocates Post Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded to Defendants.
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Stay of Execution, Change of Advocate Post Judgment, Eviction Orders, Counterclaim Procedure
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Review of Judgment Stay of Execution Change of Advocate Post Judgment Eviction Orders Counterclaim Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marituai Karingithe (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Karkise Ole Mosiro)

Plaintiff

Boman Mosiro

Plaintiff

Elijah Mosiro

Plaintiff

Simon Ndungu Supeyo

Defendant

Joseph Crespers Supeyo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion Application / Ruling on Application for Review, Stay of Execution, and Change of Advocates Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the firm of M/S Mutitu, Thiongo & Co. Advocates should be allowed to come on record for the Plaintiffs/Applicants in place of M/S T. K. Rutto & Co. Advocates who withdrew from acting for them.
  2. 2 Whether there should be a stay of execution of the Decree dated 18th December, 2019.
  3. 3 Whether the Court should review and/or set aside its Judgement and Decree and order a retrial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiffs were aware of the hearing dates and the withdrawal of their advocate, and were properly served with notices. The Plaintiffs failed to act diligently in appointing new counsel and did not provide sufficient evidence of third-party interests or errors apparent on the face of the record. The court held that the issues raised by the Plaintiffs were matters for appeal, not review, as they required reappraisal of evidence rather than correction of a clear error. The court also noted that the Plaintiffs had already filed a Notice of Appeal, making their application for review procedurally improper. The application for stay of execution was denied due to lack...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded to Defendants.

Orders

  • The firm of M/S Mutitu, Thiongo & Co. Advocates is allowed to come on record for the Plaintiffs/Applicants in place of M/S T. K. Rutto & Co. Advocates.
  • Prayer for stay of execution of the Decree dated 18th December, 2019 is declined.