[2023] KEELC 18803 (KLR)
The court found that none of the parties provided sufficient or tangible reasons to justify an adjournment. The plaintiff had been put on notice multiple times that no further adjournments would be granted, and the reasons for misdiarizing the date were unsubstantiated. The 1st and 4th defendants failed to provide...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 18803 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Primix Enterprises Limited; Defendant: Fidei Holding Limited; Defendant: Kiki Investment Limited; Defendant: George Ngure Kariuki; Defendant: Statutory Manager of United Insurance Company Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 497 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Applications for Adjournment Prior to Hearing
- Outcome
- All applications for adjournment are rejected. The matter is to proceed for hearing on the same day.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment of Hearing, Case Management, Late Filing of Defence
- 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
Primix Enterprises Limited
Plaintiff
Fidei Holding Limited
Defendant
Kiki Investment Limited
Defendant
George Ngure Kariuki
Defendant
Statutory Manager of United Insurance Company Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Applications for Adjournment Prior to Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applications for adjournment by the parties should be granted in light of previous court orders and the age of the case.
- 2 Whether the reasons advanced by the parties for adjournment are sufficient to warrant postponement of the hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that none of the parties provided sufficient or tangible reasons to justify an adjournment. The plaintiff had been put on notice multiple times that no further adjournments would be granted, and the reasons for misdiarizing the date were unsubstantiated. The 1st and 4th defendants failed to provide any valid reason for the absence of their witnesses. The 2nd and 3rd defendants' pending application for stay could not justify lack of trial preparation, as directions on that application were only given on the hearing date. Given the age of the case and the court's previous orders, the applications for adjournment were rejected to ensure the matter proceeds expeditiously.
Court Disposition
All applications for adjournment are rejected. The matter is to proceed for hearing on the same day.
Orders
- All applications for adjournment by the parties are rejected.
- All counsels are directed to avail their witnesses for hearing on the same day.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Primix Enterprises Limited v Fidei Holding Limited & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 497 of 2012) [2023] KEELC 18803 (KLR) (5 July 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 18803 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 497 of 2012
LN Mbugua, J
July 5, 2023
Between
Primix Enterprises Limited
Plaintiff
and
Fidei Holding Limited
1st Defendant
Kiki Investment Limited
2nd Defendant
George Ngure Kariuki
3rd Defendant
Statutory Manager of United Insurance Company Limited
4th Defendant
Ruling
1. This matter was scheduled for hearing today but applications for adjournments have been made by all the advocates representing the various parties. Counsel for the plaintiff informs the court that they wrongly diarized the hearing date and thus informed their client that the matter is scheduled for hearing on 7. 8.2023. That the said counsel duly informed his colleagues of this predicament yesterday (4. 7.2023). That is the reason why they are seeking for an adjournment as their clients are absent.
2. Counsel for the 1st and 4th defendants informed the court that they were ready to proceed with plaintiffs case only, but their client was not available to attend court today.
3. Counsel for the 2nd & 3rd defendants applied for adjournment on the basis that they have an application dated 3. 7.2023 seeking a stay of these proceedings as they intend to appeal against the ruling of this court delivered on 29. 6.2023 (where the court dismissed their application to file a defence out of time).
4. I have considered all the arguments advanced herein geared towards adjourning this matter. The court takes into consideration that this is a very old case filed in year 2012 whereby on 19. 1.2023, the court gave orders as follows:“This case is adjourned at the instance of the plaintiff. Matter is marked as a Last Adjournment for the plaintiff”.
5. It is clear from the above orders that on 19. 1.2023, the plaintiff had been put on notice that this matter would not be adjourned today. In so far as the application by Mr. Mutinda (counsel for the plaintiff) is concerned, I find that the court re-emphasized this hearing date, not once but twice as per the proceedings of this court of 22. 6.2023 when the court indicated as follows “hearing on 5. 7.2023 as earlier scheduled”, and again on 29. 6.2023 when the court delivered a ruling. Counsel for the plaintiff has not indicated at what point he apparently misdiarized the hearing date during the aforementioned three occassions (19. 1.2023, 22. 6.2023 and 29. 6.2023).
6. As for the case of 1st & 4th defendants, I find that no tangible reasons have been given for the absence of their witnesses.
7. On the case of 2nd & 3rd defendants, I find that the directions on their application dated 3. 7.2023 were only given today. It follows that the prosecution of their application cannot be the basis for failing to prepare for the trial.
8. In the circumstances I reject all the applications for adjournments made by the respective counsels for the parties.
9I direct that matter proceeds for hearing today. To this end, I will give all counsels an opportunity to avail their witnesses in the course of today.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 5THDAY OF JULY 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIN THE PRESENCE OF:-MWIKALI HOLDING BRIEF FOR MIRANGO FOR 2ND & 3RD DEFENDANTSWAFULA FOR 1ST AND 4TH DEFENDANTSMUTINDA FOR PLAINTIFF