[2018] KEELC 2947 (KLR)
The court found that the reasons advanced by the 1st and 2nd defendants for failing to file a replying affidavit were insufficient. The illness of one defendant was not adequately explained, and no reason was given as to why the other defendant could not comply. The court emphasized the need for compliance with its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2947 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Stanley Kipruto Bomet; Defendant: Pamela Chepchumba Rechenbach; Defendant: Francis Kituyo; Defendant: Nakuru Land Registrar
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 462 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application; Directions on Affidavits and Submissions
- Outcome
- Application for adjournment declined; directions issued for filing of affidavits and submissions; costs and adjournment fees imposed on 1st and 2nd defendants.
- Legal Topics
- Replying Affidavit Timelines, Adjournment of Hearing, Written Submissions, Court Orders Compliance
- 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
Stanley Kipruto Bomet
Plaintiff
Pamela Chepchumba Rechenbach
Defendant
Francis Kituyo
Defendant
Nakuru Land Registrar
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application; Directions on Affidavits and Submissions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants have provided valid reasons for non-compliance with the court order to file a replying affidavit.
- 2 Whether an adjournment should be granted due to the illness of one defendant.
- 3 What directions should be given for the expeditious disposal of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the reasons advanced by the 1st and 2nd defendants for failing to file a replying affidavit were insufficient. The illness of one defendant was not adequately explained, and no reason was given as to why the other defendant could not comply. The court emphasized the need for compliance with its orders and the expeditious disposal of matters. Consequently, the court declined to grant an adjournment and issued strict timelines for the filing of affidavits and submissions, warning that failure to comply would result in the application being deemed unopposed by the 1st and 2nd defendants. The court also imposed costs and adjournment fees on the 1st and 2nd defendants.
Court Disposition
Application for adjournment declined; directions issued for filing of affidavits and submissions; costs and adjournment fees imposed on 1st and 2nd defendants.
Orders
- The 1st and 2nd defendants to file and serve a replying affidavit within three (3) days from the date of the ruling.
- The plaintiff to file and serve submissions within ten (10) days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAKURU
CASE NO. 462 OF 2017
STANLEY KIPRUTO BOMET......................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PAMELA CHEPCHUMBA RECHENBACH....................1ST DEFENDANT
FRANCIS KITUYO.............................................................2ND DEFENDANT
NAKURU LAND REGISTRAR.........................................3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
On 23rd January 2018, Mr. Karanja who was then appearing for 1st and 2nd defendants sought 60 days within which to file a replying affidavit. After considering the matter, and following consultations between counsel for plaintiff and counsel for 1st and 2nd defendants, it was agreed and ordered that the 1st and 2nd defendants file a replying affidavit within 30 days and that the application dated 14th December 2017 be argued by way of written submissions.
Other than being told that one of the two defendants is unwell, we have not been told when he became sick and why the order of 23rd January 2018 could not be complied with.
We have also not been told why the other defendant who is not sick cannot swear the affidavit. All in all, I am not satisfied that valid reasons have been advanced to warrant an adjournment. Considering that the matter is today coming up for mention, I make the following orders:
1. The 1st and 2nd defendants to file and serve a replying affidavit within three (3) days from today.
2. The plaintiff to file and serve submissions within ten (10) days from today.
3. Defendants to file and serve submissions within twenty (20) days from today.
4. In default of 1st and 2nd defendants filing replying affidavit within the period provided under (1) above, the application shall be deemed unopposed by the 1st and 2nd defendants.
5. Mention on 10th July 2018 to take date of ruling.
6. The 1st and 2nd defendants shall pay court adjournment fees Kshs.2, 000/= and Mr. Ogola’s costs for today.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nakuru this 9th day of May 2018.
D. O. OHUNGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Ogola for the Plaintiff/Applicant.
Mr. Magata holding brief for Mr. Kahiga for 1st & 2nd Defendant/Respondents.
No appearance for 3rd Defendant.
Court Assistant: Gichaba