[2023] KEELC 20260 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 20260 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfactorily address the issues that led to the previous ruling, specifically the lack of evidence of filing or serving the petition and the absence of proof of payment of filing fees. The court agreed with the respondent that the application was not prosecuted and that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 20260 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mare Oge; Respondent: Habiba Aila Kara; Respondent: Kadhi Court’s Marsabit
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Isiolo
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Previous Ruling and for Stay Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
Judges
PM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Stay of Execution, Succession Disputes, Judicial Review, Court Filing Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Setting Aside Orders Stay of Execution Succession Disputes Judicial Review Court Filing Procedure

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mare Oge

Applicant

Habiba Aila Kara

Respondent

Kadhi Court’s Marsabit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Previous Ruling and for Stay Orders

  1. 1 Whether the court should set aside its ruling of July 17, 2023, which marked the matter as closed.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence of filing the petition and payment of filing fees.
  3. 3 Whether a stay of implementation of the Kadhi Court's order should be granted pending determination of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfactorily address the issues that led to the previous ruling, specifically the lack of evidence of filing or serving the petition and the absence of proof of payment of filing fees. The court agreed with the respondent that the application was not prosecuted and that no credible evidence was produced to support the applicant's claims. Consequently, the application to set aside the previous ruling and for stay orders was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the 1st respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent

Orders

  • The application dated August 10, 2023 is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the 1st respondent.