[2025] KEELC 397 (KLR)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2025] KEELC 397 (KLR)
Parties: Plaintiff: Mohamed Osman Noor; Defendant: Charo Kazungu; Defendant: Fatuma Mwandoro; Defendant: Katunga Zawadi; Defendant: Mwalimu Karisa Mangi; Defendant: Sulubu Karisa Mangi; Defendant: Karisa Mangi Kitunga; Applicant: Charo Karisa Mangi; Applicant: George Karisa Mangi; Applicant: Jefa Karisa Mangi; Applicant: Kazungu Sulubu Mangi; Applicant: Stephen Kazungu Mangi; Applicant: Rose Karisa Mangi; Applicant: Loice Kadzo
Court: Environment and Land Court
Court Station: Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction: Kenya
Case Number: Environment & Land Case 286 of 2016
Procedural Posture: Environment and Land Case / Preliminary Directions on Multiple Motions and Representation Issues
Outcome: Directions issued for all parties to appear for clarifications and further directions; no substantive determination on the motions.
Judges: FM Njoroge
Legal Topics: Joinder of Parties, Representation of Parties, Multiple Applications, Related Proceedings, Stay of Execution
Source Language: en

Civil Procedure Land and Property Joinder of Parties Representation of Parties Multiple Applications Related Proceedings Stay of Execution

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Mohamed Osman Noor

Plaintiff

Charo Kazungu

Defendant

Fatuma Mwandoro

Defendant

Katunga Zawadi

Defendant

Mwalimu Karisa Mangi

Defendant

Sulubu Karisa Mangi

Defendant

Karisa Mangi Kitunga

Defendant

Charo Karisa Mangi

Applicant

George Karisa Mangi

Applicant

Jefa Karisa Mangi

Applicant

Kazungu Sulubu Mangi

Applicant

Stephen Kazungu Mangi

Applicant

Rose Karisa Mangi

Applicant

Loice Kadzo

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Preliminary Directions on Multiple Motions and Representation Issues

Legal Issues

1 Whether the court can proceed in the absence of clear representation for the plaintiff.
2 Whether the existence of multiple applications of the same date requires clarification before further proceedings.
3 Whether related proceedings in other courts affect the necessity or propriety of continuing with the current matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that it could not proceed to hear or rule on any of the pending applications until issues of representation for the plaintiff and clarification regarding the multiple motions filed by the intended interested parties were resolved. The court also noted the existence of related proceedings involving the same parties, which could impact the necessity and propriety of continuing with the current matter. Accordingly, the court directed all parties to appear for further directions and clarifications, emphasizing the need for procedural clarity and fairness before substantive steps are taken.

Court Disposition

Directions issued for all parties to appear for clarifications and further directions; no substantive determination on the motions.

Orders

All parties to appear before court on 12/2/2025 for clarifications and issuance of proper directions.
No substantive application to be heard until representation and application issues are clarified.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

47 paragraphs

Noor v Kazungu & 5 others; Mangi & 6 others (Intended Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 286 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 397 (KLR) (6 February 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 397 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Malindi

Environment & Land Case 286 of 2016

FM Njoroge, J

February 6, 2025

Between

Mohamed Osman Noor

Plaintiff

and

Charo Kazungu

1st Defendant

Fatuma Mwandoro

2nd Defendant

Katunga Zawadi

3rd Defendant

Mwalimu Karisa Mangi

4th Defendant

Sulubu Karisa Mangi

5th Defendant

Karisa Mangi Kitunga

6th Defendant

and

Charo Karisa Mangi

Intended Interested Party

George Karisa Mangi

Intended Interested Party

Jefa Karisa Mangi

Intended Interested Party

Kazungu Sulubu Mangi

Intended Interested Party

Stephen Kazungu Mangi

Intended Interested Party

Rose Karisa Mangi

Intended Interested Party

Loice Kadzo

Intended Interested Party

Ruling

The Application 1. Through the firm of Muli Ole Kina & Co advocates the intended interested parties filed two Motions, both dated 28th December, 2024. I will not set out the orders therein verbatim herein for reasons that will be obvious in the rest of this ruling.

2. A perusal of the court file has revealed that on certain occasions this court was of the impression that the matter has not been heard. Now that the court’s attention has been drawn to the said applications it must give appropriate directions on them.

3. Also, this court having on 7/11/2023 dismissed for default of AOS the motion to have Aboubakar Mwanakitina and Company Advocates come on record for the plaintiff herein in place of Wesley John Austin & Associates, there is no representation for the plaintiff.

4. When the court issued orders that the motion dated 28/12/22 would come up for a ruling on 6/2/2025, it never specified which of the two applications it intended to rule on and counsel present for the applicant never drew the attention of the court to the existence of two motions of the same date.

5. This is a situation that may generate unnecessary and protracted proceedings unless clarity is sought from and agreed amongst all the parties with regard to representation and the application intended to be pursued, so that the defending party may not cry foul afterwards.

6. Besides, the disclosure of the existence of the Petition No 5 Of 2022 between the same parties demands that parties and court consider if the proceedings herein are really necessary. In that petition the court dismissed the injunction application while noting that execution in ELC No 286 of 2016 was effected on 5th December 2021. There is also an intimation by Mr. Gambo that there is an application for stay of execution presumably in the Court of Appeal. Mr Mogaka was of the opinion that this matter is related to OS No 3 of 2024. It is clear certain clarifications are needed before further proceedings are taken herein.

7. Consequently, I order that all parties shall appear before court on 12/2/2025 for issuance of such clarifications and for the issuance of proper directions by this court.

RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ON THIS 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025. MWANGI NJOROGEJUDGE, ELC MALINDI.

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.