[2019] KEELC 2783 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2783 (KLR)

The court determined that it is in the interest of justice to allow the application, as this would enable all parties to properly present their cases and ensure that the Attorney General, who may provide material evidence regarding the disputed transactions, is able to participate fully. The court exercised its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2783 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Rivandra Ratilal Tailor; Plaintiff: James Kariuki Karanja; Plaintiff: Kenneth Kipkemboi Koech; Defendant: John Wamakonjio; Defendant: County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County; Defendant: The Hon. Attorney General; Defendant: Alice Chepchumba Chesire; Defendant: Jonathan Bett; Defendant: John Kimutai Tunduny; Defendant: Shadrack Ngugi Kamau; Defendant: David Samoei; Defendant: Stephen Ndung'u
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 1016 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Reply to Defence, Defence to Counterclaim, Filing of Documents, Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
en
Land and Property Reply to Defence Defence to Counterclaim Filing of Documents Interlocutory Applications

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rivandra Ratilal Tailor

Plaintiff

James Kariuki Karanja

Plaintiff

Kenneth Kipkemboi Koech

Plaintiff

John Wamakonjio

Defendant

County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County

Defendant

The Hon. Attorney General

Defendant

Alice Chepchumba Chesire

Defendant

Jonathan Bett

Defendant

John Kimutai Tunduny

Defendant

Shadrack Ngugi Kamau

Defendant

David Samoei

Defendant

Stephen Ndung'u

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the application to allow filing of reply to defence and defence to counterclaim should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the Attorney General's evidence is necessary for the just determination of the dispute.
  3. 3 Whether parties should be allowed to file and exchange documents before hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that it is in the interest of justice to allow the application, as this would enable all parties to properly present their cases and ensure that the Attorney General, who may provide material evidence regarding the disputed transactions, is able to participate fully. The court exercised its discretion to allow the filing of replies to defence and defences to counterclaim, and directed the parties to file and exchange documents within a specified period to facilitate a fair and informed hearing.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Plaintiff, 1st, 4th and 9th defendant to file reply to defence and defence to counterclaim within 21 days.
  • Hearing set for 15th October 2019.