[2023] KEELC 18964 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 18964 (KLR)

The court found the application for adjournment unmeritorious, holding that the reasons advanced by the defendant's counsel did not outweigh the need for expeditious hearing and determination of the matter. The court relied on the principle that advocates must be prepared for hearings and that justice should not be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 18964 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Andrew Otieno Ogwang; Plaintiff: Tom Ochola Odhiambo; Plaintiff: Grace Akinyi Okinda; Plaintiff: Lucy Atieno Ochieng; Defendant: Tom Odak (Sued in his Capacity as the Legal Representative and an Administrator of the Estate of Zilpah Odak - Deceased)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 28 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Adjournment Application
Outcome
application for adjournment disallowed; hearing to proceed
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Hearing, Expeditious Trial, Judicial Discretion, Estate Administration
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Adjournment of Hearing Expeditious Trial Judicial Discretion Estate Administration

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Otieno Ogwang

Plaintiff

Tom Ochola Odhiambo

Plaintiff

Grace Akinyi Okinda

Plaintiff

Lucy Atieno Ochieng

Plaintiff

Tom Odak (Sued in his Capacity as the Legal Representative and an Administrator of the Estate of Zilpah Odak - Deceased)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Adjournment Application

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's application for adjournment of the hearing should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the interests of expeditious justice outweigh the reasons for adjournment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the application for adjournment unmeritorious, holding that the reasons advanced by the defendant's counsel did not outweigh the need for expeditious hearing and determination of the matter. The court relied on the principle that advocates must be prepared for hearings and that justice should not be delayed, as enshrined in the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act. The court thus disallowed the application for adjournment and ordered the hearing to proceed as previously scheduled.

Court Disposition

application for adjournment disallowed; hearing to proceed

Orders

  • The defendant's application for adjournment is disallowed.
  • The hearing of the suit shall proceed as previously ordered on May 24, 2023.