[2025] KEELC 440 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 440 (KLR)

The court declined to determine the application dated 9th December 2024 because only a partial, illegible copy was available on record, making it impossible to appreciate the contents or the basis of the application. Furthermore, the court found that the further affidavit by the 2nd defendant's director referenced a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 440 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Juma Charo Mwangazi & 3 others; Defendant: Jaferalli Lalji Mawani; Defendant: Msambweni Development Co. Ltd; Plaintiff: Msambweni Development Co. Ltd; Defendant: Said Juma Fundi & 81 others
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 463 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Interlocutory Ruling on Application and Affidavits
Outcome
Interlocutory orders issued; no substantive determination on the application pending compliance with court directions.
Judges
SM Kibunja
Legal Topics
Land Adjudication, Affidavit Procedure, Court Record Management
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Adjudication Affidavit Procedure Court Record Management

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juma Charo Mwangazi & 3 others

Plaintiff

Jaferalli Lalji Mawani

Defendant

Msambweni Development Co. Ltd

Defendant

Msambweni Development Co. Ltd

Plaintiff

Said Juma Fundi & 81 others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Interlocutory Ruling on Application and Affidavits

  1. 1 Whether the court can determine the application dated 9th December 2024 in the absence of a complete and legible copy of the notice of motion.
  2. 2 Whether the further affidavit referencing a future-dated letter is valid without clarification of the correct date.
  3. 3 Whether the consent filed can be determined without clarification of the affidavit and proper documentation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to determine the application dated 9th December 2024 because only a partial, illegible copy was available on record, making it impossible to appreciate the contents or the basis of the application. Furthermore, the court found that the further affidavit by the 2nd defendant's director referenced a letter dated in the future, which required clarification before the court could rely on it. The court held that it is essential for parties to provide complete, accurate, and legible documents for the court's consideration, and any ambiguities or errors in affidavits or supporting documents must be rectified before a substantive determination can be made. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders issued; no substantive determination on the application pending compliance with court directions.

Orders

  • The 2nd defendant/applicant to upload a properly scanned and legible copy of the notice of motion dated 9th December 2024 within two days.
  • A supplementary or further affidavit clarifying the date of the letter referenced in the affidavit sworn on 28th January 2025 to be filed within two days.