[2020] KEELC 430 (KLR)
The court found that the intended appellants failed to comply with explicit court orders to file and exchange their record of appeal and written submissions within the stipulated time. Additionally, upon perusal of the intended appeal under Section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act, the court determined that there were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 430 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Phares Munyambu Rimberia; Appellant: Charles Kithine Rimberia; Respondent: Seventh Day Adventist Church
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Appeal and Compliance With Court Orders
- Outcome
- appeal summarily rejected
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Dismissal, Non Compliance With Court Orders, Summary Rejection, Record of Appeal, Grounds for Appeal
- 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
Phares Munyambu Rimberia
Appellant
Charles Kithine Rimberia
Appellant
Seventh Day Adventist Church
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Appeal and Compliance With Court Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the intended appellants complied with court orders regarding filing and exchange of documents.
- 2 Whether there were sufficient grounds to interfere with the decree or order appealed against under Section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the intended appellants failed to comply with explicit court orders to file and exchange their record of appeal and written submissions within the stipulated time. Additionally, upon perusal of the intended appeal under Section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act, the court determined that there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the decree or order appealed against. Consequently, the court summarily rejected the intended appeal, emphasizing both procedural non-compliance and lack of substantive merit as the basis for its decision.
Court Disposition
appeal summarily rejected
Orders
- The intended appeal is summarily rejected.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC APPEAL CASE NO. E001 OF 2020
MARIMANTI PM’S ELC.26 OF 2017
PHARES MUNYAMBU RIMBERIA.....................................1ST APPELLANT/APPLICANT
CHARLES KITHINE RIMBERIA.........................................2ND APPELLANT/APPLICANT
VERSUS
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH.........................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. In this matter, the intended appellants were on 14th October, 2020 directed to respond to the respondent’s replying affidavit within 7 days of that date and to also file and exchange their written submissions concerning the application dated 15/9/2020 within the same time. The intended appellants did not do as directed by the court.
2. On 11th November, 2020, Mary Muthoni the wife of the 2nd intended Appellant told the court that he was indisposed. She told the court that her husband supported the respondent and was not consulted when the suit was filed.
3. The intended Appellants were on 11/11/2020 directed to file and exchange a record of appeal within 7 days.
4. On 23/11/2020, Advocate Nyenyire, representing the respondent told the court that contrary to court orders, the intended Appellant had not filed a record of Appeal. He urged the court to dismiss the intended Appeal on account of disobedience of court orders.
5. Once again, Mary Muthoni told the court that her husband was sick. She reiterated that he did not support the intended appeal.
6. I opine that the disobedience of court orders would be a sufficient reason for dismissal of this appeal. However, I will dispose of it for another reason.
7. In terms of the provision of Section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act, I have perused the intended Appeal and I consider that there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the decree or part of a decree or any order appealed against and, I therefore, summarily reject this appeal.
8. For avoidance of doubt, this Intended Appeal is summarily rejected.
Delivered in open Court at Chuka this 23rd day of November, 2020in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Miss Kijaru h/b for the Respondent.
Mary Muthoni w/o Charles Kithinji, 2nd Intended Appellant.
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE