[2024] KEELC 13898 (KLR)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2024] KEELC 13898 (KLR)
Parties: Plaintiff: Muranga Road Motor Mart Limited; Defendant: Jane Wairimu Kingori; Defendant: Tabitha Waruguru Maina; Defendant: Nancy Waturi Njonjo; Defendant: Director of Survey Ministry of Lands; Defendant: Nairobi City County Government; Defendant: OCPD Buruburu Police Station
Court: Environment and Land Court
Court Station: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction: Kenya
Case Number: Environment & Land Case E038 of 2022
Procedural Posture: Review Application / Ruling on Application to Review and Set Aside Previous Orders
Outcome: application allowed with costs to the plaintiff; previous orders set aside
Judges: LN Mbugua
Legal Topics: Review of Court Orders, Setting Aside Orders, Service of Process, Compliance With Court Directions
Source Language: en

Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Court Orders Setting Aside Orders Service of Process Compliance With Court Directions

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Muranga Road Motor Mart Limited

Plaintiff

Jane Wairimu Kingori

Defendant

Tabitha Waruguru Maina

Defendant

Nancy Waturi Njonjo

Defendant

Director of Survey Ministry of Lands

Defendant

Nairobi City County Government

Defendant

OCPD Buruburu Police Station

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application to Review and Set Aside Previous Orders

Legal Issues

1 Whether the 5th defendant complied with the court's directions regarding service of documents.
2 Whether the failure to file an affidavit of service warranted dismissal of the application and preliminary objection.
3 Whether the orders of 17.10.2024 should be reviewed and set aside to allow determination on merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the 5th defendant failed to file an affidavit of service by the deadline, it had in fact effected service, and this was not rebutted by the plaintiff. The omission was deemed inadvertent rather than willful defiance. The court emphasized that the main purpose of procedural timelines is to ensure efficient case management, but justice should not be sacrificed for technicalities where no prejudice is demonstrated. Balancing the interests of all parties, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for review and set aside the previous orders, subject to the 5th defendant paying costs to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

application allowed with costs to the plaintiff; previous orders set aside

Orders

The 5th defendant's application dated 23.10.2024 is allowed.
The court's orders of 17.10.2024 are reviewed and set aside.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

31 paragraphs

Muranga Road Motor Mart Limited v Kingori & 5 others (Environment & Land Case E038 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 13898 (KLR) (17 December 2024) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 13898 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Environment & Land Case E038 of 2022

LN Mbugua, J

December 17, 2024

Between

Muranga Road Motor Mart Limited

Plaintiff

and

Jane Wairimu Kingori

1st Defendant

Tabitha Waruguru Maina

2nd Defendant

Nancy Waturi Njonjo

3rd Defendant

Director of Survey Ministry of Lands

4th Defendant

Nairobi City County Government

5th Defendant

OCPD Buruburu Police Station

6th Defendant

Ruling

1. Before me is the 5th Defendant’s Notice of Motion dated 23. 10. 2024 seeking orders for review and setting aside of the courts orders of 17. 10. 2024 so as to determine the Notice of Preliminary Objection and Application dated 27. 2.2024 on merits. The application is premised on grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit of W.S. Ogola the Acting County Solicitor of the 5th defendant. He contends that contrary to the courts observation in its ruling of 17. 10. 2024, the applicant fully complied with the courts directions given on 23. 7.2024.

2. In opposition thereof, the plaintiff has opposed the application vide the Replying affidavit of its director, one Francis Nganga contending that the application has no merits as the applicants were in open defiance of the court orders.

3. A perusal of the ruling dated 17. 10. 2024 reveals that the application and the Preliminary Objection were dismissed for none compliance with courts directions, primarily on the issue of service since by close of business on 30. 7.2024, no affidavit of service had been filed.

4. At ground number 4 in their current application, the applicants contend that they had indeed effected service but they inadvertently failed to file an affidavit of service. The respondent has however not rebutted the averment that they were served.

5. In the case of Isiolo Stage View Enterprises v Isiolo County Government & 2 Others [2018] eKLR (Mbugua J), the court stated that the main purpose for imposing timelines of events in the lifespan of a court case (including filing of documents) is to achieve the overriding objectives set out in the Civil Procedure Act. The court went ahead to state that;“Time standards help courts to closely manage and monitor the processing of cases from filing to conclusion. Further, time standards set defined targets for the completion of key process steps and events, establish overall goals that judges and lawyers must meet, create the expectation of what constitutes timeliness, and are essential to eliminating and avoiding case backlogs. The standards reflect a commitment by the courts to complete cases promptly, and also reflect what court users’ regard as a reasonable time for the resolution of case. The net effect of non-compliance with the set timelines is delay, creation of backlog, more acrimony and even confusion”.

6. Weighing the interests of all the parties herein, the court is inclined to allow the application dated 23. 10. 2024 but with costs to the plaintiff.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 17thDAY OF DECEMBER 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:Gitahi Njuguna holding brief for Murage for PlaintiffIrene Odhiambo holding brief for Bake for 5th for DefendantAllan Kamau for 4th and 5th DefendantsOmondi holding brief for Were for 1st – 3rd DefendantsAssistant: Vena

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.