[2025] KEELC 3307 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 3307 (KLR)

The court found that the ex parte applicants failed to comply with its directions by not filing written submissions and failing to attend the scheduled hearing. The respondents, having complied with the court's directions, were entitled to seek dismissal of the application. The court exercised its discretion to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 3307 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Geoffrey Githiri Ngugi; Applicant: Samuel Kiarie Ngugi; Applicant: James Mungai Ngugi; Respondent: Kipipiri Land Dispute Tribunal; Respondent: John K Ngugi; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nyandarua
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E004 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Leave to Change Advocate and Removal of Restriction
Outcome
application dismissed for want of prosecution and non-compliance with court directions
Judges
JM Kamau
Legal Topics
Land Restrictions, Removal of Caveat, Change of Advocate, Tribunal Decisions, Consent Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Restrictions Removal of Caveat Change of Advocate Tribunal Decisions Consent Orders

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Githiri Ngugi

Applicant

Samuel Kiarie Ngugi

Applicant

James Mungai Ngugi

Applicant

Kipipiri Land Dispute Tribunal

Respondent

John K Ngugi

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Leave to Change Advocate and Removal of Restriction

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted for a change of advocate for the 2nd applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the restriction registered against parcel Nyandarua/Mawingo/2145 and related parcels should be lifted.
  3. 3 Whether the application should be dismissed for non-attendance and failure to file submissions by the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the ex parte applicants failed to comply with its directions by not filing written submissions and failing to attend the scheduled hearing. The respondents, having complied with the court's directions, were entitled to seek dismissal of the application. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application dated 22/7/2024 for want of prosecution and non-compliance with court orders. The substantive issues regarding the removal of the restriction and change of advocate were not determined on their merits due to the applicants' default.

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of prosecution and non-compliance with court directions

Orders

  • The ex parte applicants' application dated 22/7/2024 is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.