[2021] KEELC 855 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 855 (KLR)

The court found that the application was not anchored on any substantive suit, such as a plaint or petition, as required by law. This omission deprived the court of jurisdiction to entertain the application. Additionally, the applicants failed to serve the 1st to 5th Respondents, and there was no affidavit of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 855 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Paul Odhiambo Jaramba; Applicant: Daniel Nyerere Kochele; Applicant: Marion Atieno Ojiem; Respondent: Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement Project (KISSIP); Respondent: County Government of Kisumu; Respondent: Commissioner for Lands; Respondent: Director of Surveys of Kenya; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 38 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Originating Proceedings, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Service of Process Originating Proceedings Abuse of Process

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Odhiambo Jaramba

Applicant

Daniel Nyerere Kochele

Applicant

Marion Atieno Ojiem

Applicant

Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement Project (KISSIP)

Respondent

County Government of Kisumu

Respondent

Commissioner for Lands

Respondent

Director of Surveys of Kenya

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Application

  1. 1 Whether the application is properly before the court in the absence of a plaint or petition.
  2. 2 Whether failure to serve the 1st to 5th Respondents invalidates the application.
  3. 3 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of the court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was not anchored on any substantive suit, such as a plaint or petition, as required by law. This omission deprived the court of jurisdiction to entertain the application. Additionally, the applicants failed to serve the 1st to 5th Respondents, and there was no affidavit of service on record. The court held that these procedural lapses constituted an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 12/3/2020 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.