[2022] KEHC 27043 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 27043 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioner’s request to withdraw the interlocutory application was merited, as there was no objection from the respondents and withdrawal would facilitate the expeditious hearing of the main petition. The court exercised its discretion under Order 25 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 27043 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samuel O. Nyauke; Respondent: The Homa Bay Sub-County Administrator; Respondent: Officer Commanding Police Division-Homa-Bay; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Ernest Bin Amito; Respondent: Joint Base Nava Enterprises Limited; Respondent: The Director General National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Constitutional Petition E001 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Withdrawal of Interlocutory Application
Outcome
interlocutory application withdrawn; petition to proceed by written submissions
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Applications, Withdrawal of Application, Written Submissions, Environmental Nuisance
Source Language
en
Environmental Law Civil Procedure Interlocutory Applications Withdrawal of Application Written Submissions Environmental Nuisance

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

Samuel O. Nyauke

Applicant

The Homa Bay Sub-County Administrator

Respondent

Officer Commanding Police Division-Homa-Bay

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Ernest Bin Amito

Respondent

Joint Base Nava Enterprises Limited

Respondent

The Director General National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Withdrawal of Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw the interlocutory application dated 10th February 2022.
  2. 2 Whether the petition should proceed by way of written submissions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner’s request to withdraw the interlocutory application was merited, as there was no objection from the respondents and withdrawal would facilitate the expeditious hearing of the main petition. The court exercised its discretion under Order 25 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, and marked the application as withdrawn, with costs in the cause. The court further directed that the petition be heard by way of written submissions, setting timelines for the parties to file and serve their submissions, in line with the overriding objective of efficient and fair administration of justice as enshrined in Article 159(2) of the Constitution and Section 3 of...

Court Disposition

interlocutory application withdrawn; petition to proceed by written submissions

Orders

  • The petitioner’s application dated 10th February 2022 is marked as withdrawn.
  • Costs of the withdrawn application to be in the cause.