[2018] KEELC 4736 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4736 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had not established any sufficient reason or error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review of the orders issued on 19:07:17. The court noted that the parties were directed to file valuation reports within 30 days, but there was no compliance. Consequently, the orders...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 4736 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Kilemi M'Itimitu (Legal representative of the estate of M'Itimitu M'Mwithia - Deceased); Defendant: Diocese of Meru; Defendant: Romano Kobia (Teressa Kaari Kobia as legal representative of Roman Kobia Linyiru - deceased)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 52 of 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review of Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to respondent
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Compensation for Land, Valuation Reports, Civil Procedure Rules
Source Language
en
Land and Property Review of Court Orders Compensation for Land Valuation Reports Civil Procedure Rules

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Kilemi M'Itimitu (Legal representative of the estate of M'Itimitu M'Mwithia - Deceased)

Plaintiff

Diocese of Meru

Defendant

Romano Kobia (Teressa Kaari Kobia as legal representative of Roman Kobia Linyiru - deceased)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review of Orders

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established grounds for review of the court's orders issued on 19:07:17.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to avail the valuation report after non-compliance with earlier court directions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not established any sufficient reason or error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review of the orders issued on 19:07:17. The court noted that the parties were directed to file valuation reports within 30 days, but there was no compliance. Consequently, the orders barring the plaintiff from availing the valuation report were justified. Furthermore, the court had already allowed the plaintiff to testify on the issue of compensation, and thus, there was no prejudice or miscarriage of justice that would necessitate review. The application for review was therefore unmerited and dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 02:10:17 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.