[2021] KEELC 1623 (KLR)
The court found that the application was unopposed as the respondents neither filed a response nor appeared at the hearing. The supporting affidavit's averments regarding service of the orders and non-compliance were uncontested. The court held that, in the absence of any opposition or explanation from the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 1623 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Pavel Paul Curzon; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: The Minister for Interior and Coordination of National Government; Respondent: The Inspector General of Police; Respondent: The OCS Kilimani Police Station; Respondent: Director of Criminal Investigation; Respondent: Chief Land Registrar
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 5 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Enforcement of Prior Orders
- Outcome
- Application allowed; orders granted as prayed in prayers 1 and 2 of the Notice of Motion dated 9th March, 2021.
- Legal Topics
- Enforcement of Court Orders, Compliance With Judicial Orders, Land Registration, Public Officer Duties
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pavel Paul Curzon
Petitioner
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
The Minister for Interior and Coordination of National Government
Respondent
The Inspector General of Police
Respondent
The OCS Kilimani Police Station
Respondent
Director of Criminal Investigation
Respondent
Chief Land Registrar
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Enforcement of Prior Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 4th and 6th respondents have failed to comply with court orders issued on 16th August, 2016 and 7th October, 2016.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to orders compelling the respondents to comply with the said court orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was unopposed as the respondents neither filed a response nor appeared at the hearing. The supporting affidavit's averments regarding service of the orders and non-compliance were uncontested. The court held that, in the absence of any opposition or explanation from the respondents, the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of the orders sought. The court therefore allowed the application in terms of prayers 1 and 2, compelling the 4th and 6th respondents to appear in court and produce the required documents and information as previously ordered.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; orders granted as prayed in prayers 1 and 2 of the Notice of Motion dated 9th March, 2021.
Orders
- The 4th and 6th respondents are compelled to comply with the orders made on 16th August, 2016 and 7th October, 2016.
- The 4th and 6th respondents shall appear in court on 8th November, 2021 to produce the documents and provide the information set out in the previous orders.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI
PETITION NO. 5 OF 2019
BETWEEN
PAVEL PAUL CURZON...........................................................PETITIONER
AND
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL......................................PETITIONER
THE MINISTER FOR INTERIOR AND COORDINATION
OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT...................................2ND RESPONDENT
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE.................3RD RESPONDENT
THE OCS KILIMANI POLICE STATION....................4TH RESPONDENT
DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..........5TH RESPONDENT
CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR...........................................6TH RESPONDENT
RULING
I have perused the Notice of Motion dated 9th March, 2021 together with the supporting affidavit. The application was served upon the respondents but they did not respond to the same. The application is in the circumstances not opposed. The orders sought are aimed at compelling the 4th and 6th Respondents to comply with the orders that were made herein on 16th August, 2016 and 7th October, 2016. Since the respondents did not respond to the application, the averments in the supporting affidavit with regard to the issuance of the said orders and service of the same upon the respondents are not contested. The averment that the respondents have not complied with the said orders despite service has also not been contested.
When the application came up for hearing on 10th March, 2021, the advocates for the respondents did not turn up. The applicant’s advocate urged the court to allow the application as prayed. I am satisfied from what I have set out above that the applicant’s application dated 9th March, 2021 has merit. The application is allowed for now in terms of prayers 1 and 2 thereof. The 4th and 6th Respondents shall appear in court on 8th November, 2021 to produce the documents and provide the information set out in the orders made herein.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
S. OKONG’O
JUDGE
Ruling delivered virtually through Microsoft Teams Video Conferencing Platform in the presence of:
Mr. Ojiambo for the Applicant
N/A for the Respondents
Ms. C. Nyokabi - Court Assistant vc