[2024] KEELC 7325 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 7325 (KLR)

The court found that the appeal was properly initiated by a Memorandum of Appeal dated 10th July 2024, challenging the BPRT ruling delivered on 28th June 2024. The appeal was filed within the 30-day window provided under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and complied with Order 42 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 7325 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Michael Muchiri; Respondent: Billy Ngugi Ciera
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E095 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to appellant
Judges
MD Mwangi
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Court, Appeals From Bprt, Memorandum of Appeal Requirements, Civil Procedure Act Section 79g
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Jurisdiction of Court Appeals From Bprt Memorandum of Appeal Requirements Civil Procedure Act Section 79g

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Muchiri

Appellant

Billy Ngugi Ciera

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court's jurisdiction was properly invoked in the appeal against the BPRT decision.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal was properly filed in accordance with the Civil Procedure Act and Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the preliminary objection raised by the respondent has merit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appeal was properly initiated by a Memorandum of Appeal dated 10th July 2024, challenging the BPRT ruling delivered on 28th June 2024. The appeal was filed within the 30-day window provided under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and complied with Order 42 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The respondent's preliminary objection, which challenged the court's jurisdiction and the competence of the appeal, was found to be without basis. The court held that the requirements for instituting an appeal from the BPRT had been met, and there was no procedural defect or abuse of process. Accordingly, the preliminary objection was dismissed with costs to the appellant.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed with costs to appellant

Orders

  • The preliminary objection dated 18th July 2024 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the preliminary objection are awarded to the appellant against the respondent.