[2025] KEELC 5269 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 5269 (KLR)

The court found that the defendants were not properly served with the application for injunctive orders as service was effected at a residence they were not occupying for six months. The absence of opposition from the plaintiffs and the constitutional right to be heard weighed in favour of granting the application....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 5269 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Elizabeth Njango; Plaintiff: Simon Mbocha Kinyati; Defendant: Peter Thande Kinuthia; Defendant: John Kariuki Mbugua
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 July 2025
Case Number
Environment and Land Case E177 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Admit Replying Affidavit Out of Time
Outcome
Application allowed; replying affidavit admitted out of time subject to conditions.
Judges
JA Mogeni
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Right to Be Heard, Service of Process, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Right to Be Heard Service of Process Injunctive Relief

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Njango

Plaintiff

Simon Mbocha Kinyati

Plaintiff

Peter Thande Kinuthia

Defendant

John Kariuki Mbugua

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Admit Replying Affidavit Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be allowed to file a replying affidavit out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the scheduled delivery of the court's ruling should be arrested to allow consideration of the defendants' response.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants were not properly served with the application for injunctive orders as service was effected at a residence they were not occupying for six months. The absence of opposition from the plaintiffs and the constitutional right to be heard weighed in favour of granting the application. The court held that no prejudice would be suffered by the plaintiffs if the replying affidavit was admitted out of time, whereas the defendants would be prejudiced if denied the opportunity to respond. The court exercised its discretion under Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to enlarge time and admit the replying affidavit,...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; replying affidavit admitted out of time subject to conditions.

Orders

  • The scheduled delivery of the court's ruling on 07/07/2025 is arrested.
  • The replying affidavit dated 3/04/2025 is admitted on record upon payment of requisite fees.