[2021] KEELC 2610 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 2610 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's counsel's inability to join the virtual hearing did not constitute sufficient grounds for review of the orders directing that the application be disposed of by written submissions. The court emphasized its discretion to determine the mode of hearing and noted that an oral hearing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 2610 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Patrick J. P Kanyagia; Defendant: Violet L Maningo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 177 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Orders
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Written Submissions, Virtual Hearings, Case Management
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Court Orders Written Submissions Virtual Hearings Case Management

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

Patrick J. P Kanyagia

Plaintiff

Violet L Maningo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Orders

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for review of the court's orders given on 26th April 2021.
  2. 2 Whether the court's discretion to direct written submissions instead of oral hearing was properly exercised.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's counsel's inability to join the virtual hearing did not constitute sufficient grounds for review of the orders directing that the application be disposed of by written submissions. The court emphasized its discretion to determine the mode of hearing and noted that an oral hearing would not alter the outcome, especially since the urgency of the matter had already been accommodated by an expedited mention date. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.