[2024] KEELC 167 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 167 (KLR)

The court found the respondents' application to withdraw their preliminary objection meritorious and allowed it. The court exercised its discretion to mark the preliminary objection as withdrawn with no orders as to costs, despite the applicant's request for costs, considering the circumstances and the stage of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 167 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: The County Government Of Homa Bay; Respondent: The Chief Finance Officer, County Government Of Homa Bay; Applicant: Okello John Robert Liech
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Withdrawal of Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Preliminary objection withdrawn with no order as to costs.
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Mandamus, Preliminary Objection, Withdrawal of Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Judicial Review Mandamus Preliminary Objection Withdrawal of Application

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

The County Government Of Homa Bay

Respondent

The Chief Finance Officer, County Government Of Homa Bay

Respondent

Okello John Robert Liech

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Withdrawal of Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction should be withdrawn.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded upon withdrawal of the preliminary objection.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the respondents' application to withdraw their preliminary objection meritorious and allowed it. The court exercised its discretion to mark the preliminary objection as withdrawn with no orders as to costs, despite the applicant's request for costs, considering the circumstances and the stage of proceedings. The withdrawal was permitted to facilitate the prosecution of a subsequent application, and the court determined that each party should bear its own costs for the withdrawn objection.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection withdrawn with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The respondents’ preliminary objection dated 18th October 2023 is marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs.