[2019] KEELC 4351 (KLR)
The court found that the ex-parte applicant had been granted multiple opportunities to file the amended notice of motion but had failed to comply with court orders, resulting in prolonged delay of the proceedings. The court emphasized its constitutional and statutory mandate to ensure justice is not delayed and to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 4351 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Director Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer; Respondent: District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Tigania District; Interested Party: Joseph Miriti Thilange; Applicant: Fredrick Simon Mburunga; Applicant: Humphrey Mururu Mburung'a
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 52 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Extension of Time to File Amended Notice of Motion
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time declined. Directions to be taken forthwith for hearing of substantive motion.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Case Management, Land Adjudication Process
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Director Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer
Respondent
District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Tigania District
Respondent
Joseph Miriti Thilange
Interested Party
Fredrick Simon Mburunga
Applicant
Humphrey Mururu Mburung'a
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Extension of Time to File Amended Notice of Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex-parte applicant should be granted further extension of time to file an amended notice of motion.
- 2 Whether continued delay by the ex-parte applicant justifies denial of further indulgence by the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the ex-parte applicant had been granted multiple opportunities to file the amended notice of motion but had failed to comply with court orders, resulting in prolonged delay of the proceedings. The court emphasized its constitutional and statutory mandate to ensure justice is not delayed and to manage cases efficiently. Given the history of non-compliance and the simple procedural nature of the outstanding step, the court held that no further indulgence was warranted. The application for extension of time was therefore declined, and the court directed that directions be taken immediately for the hearing of the substantive motion, with no further applications to be...
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time declined. Directions to be taken forthwith for hearing of substantive motion.
Orders
- No further extension of time to file amended notice of motion is granted.
- Directions to be taken immediately on how the substantive motion is to be heard.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
ELC JR NO. 52 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL ORDERS OF CERTIORARI
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT (CAP 26 LAWS OF KENYA)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND CONSOLIDAITON ACT (CAP 283 LAWS OF KENYA)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND ADJUDICATION ACT (CAP 284 LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF OBJECTION NO. 2997 AND 2998
AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND PARCEL NO’S 842 AND 1863
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC.......................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE DIRECTOR LAND ADJUDICATION
AND SETTLEMENT OFFICER................ ......................1ST RESPONDENT
THE DISTRICT LAND ADJUDICATION AND
SETTLEMENT OFFICER TIGANIA DISTRICT..........2ND RESPONDENT
JOSEPH MIRITI THILANGE....................................INTERESTED PARTY
FREDRICK SIMON MBURUNGA..........................EXPARTE APPLICANT
HUMPHREY MURURU MBURUNG’A..................EXPARTE APPLICANT
RULING
1. On 29. 1.2019 the Ex-parte applicant sought for more time to file an amended notice of motion, (7 days to be precise) which application was opposed by the Attorney General and the Interested Party on the basis that this Judicial Review motion has stalled for many years courtesy of the Ex-parte applicant.
2. I have perused the record where I have found that this Judicial Review suit has marked time in court for the last 7 years and counting, primarily because of numerous applications filed by the Ex-parte applicant and because of non-compliance with court orders.
3. I will however deal with the recent record, particularly the one concerning the application dated 29. 5.2018 to have the Substantive Motion and the statements of facts amended. That application was allowed on 18. 10. 2018 and the Judicial Review suit was scheduled for hearing on 18. 12. 2018 before a visiting Judge. This was in consideration that the courts country wide were undertaking an exercise of clearing all cases which were more than five years old, whereby this matter fell under that category.
4. However, the chance to have this matter dealt with expeditiously slipped away on 18. 12. 2018 simply, because the Ex-parte applicant sought for 14 more days to file the amended notice of motion. The court indulged them which meant that the amended documents ought to have been filed and served by 2. 1.2019.
5. However, when the matter came up before me on 29. 1.2019, the Ex-parte applicant was still seeking more time to file the amended notice of motion.
6. This court has a constitutional mandate stipulated under article 159 (2) of the constitution as follows; “Justice shall not be delayed”.
7. Section 1B of the civil procedure Actfurther provides that;
“For the purpose of furthering the overriding objective specified in section 1A, the Court shall handle all matters presented before it for the purpose of attaining the following aims—
(a) the just determination of the proceedings;
(b) the efficient disposal of the business of theCourt;
(c) the efficient use of the available judicial andadministrative resources;
(d) the timely disposal of the proceedings, and all otherproceedings in the Court, at a cost affordable bythe respective parties.
8. Further, section 1A (3) of Civil procedure Act provides that “A party to civil proceedings or an advocate for such a party is under a duty to assist the Court to further the overriding objective of the Act and, to that effect, to participate in the processes of the Court and to comply with the directions and orders of the Court”.
9. The Ex-parte applicant doesn’t deserve more indulgence from this court. I decline to grant any further extension. It is not fathomable that a simple procedural exercise has caused this matter to stall since October 2018 when the application to amend was allowed.
10. I direct that directions be taken forthwith on how the substantive motion is to be heard, and the court will not entertain any other applications in this matter.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 6TH MARCH, 2019 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kinoti
Gikonyo holding brief for Ndubi for Interested party
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE