[2017] KEHC 6950 (KLR)
The court found that the matter had suffered inordinate delay due to repeated non-compliance with court orders regarding pretrial procedures. Invoking the overriding objective under the Civil Procedure Act and the constitutional imperative for expeditious justice, the court declined to grant further time for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6950 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Stephen Muriira Makero (as legal representative of the estate of M'Makero Kaendo); Defendant: Moses Mungania; Defendant: Joyce Kinya; Defendant: Stephen Murimi; Defendant: Rose Muthoni; Defendant: The Land Adjudication Officer, Tigania West District; Defendant: The Honourable Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 126 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Environment Case / Pretrial Directions/order on Compliance
- Outcome
- Further time for compliance denied; pretrial directions to be issued for expeditious trial.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Case Management, Pretrial Compliance, Overriding Objective, Expeditious Justice
- 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
Stephen Muriira Makero (as legal representative of the estate of M'Makero Kaendo)
Plaintiff
Moses Mungania
Defendant
Joyce Kinya
Defendant
Stephen Murimi
Defendant
Rose Muthoni
Defendant
The Land Adjudication Officer, Tigania West District
Defendant
The Honourable Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Pretrial Directions/order on Compliance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the parties have complied with previous court orders regarding pretrial procedures.
- 2 Whether further time for compliance should be granted given the history of delays.
- 3 What directions should be given to ensure expeditious disposal of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the matter had suffered inordinate delay due to repeated non-compliance with court orders regarding pretrial procedures. Invoking the overriding objective under the Civil Procedure Act and the constitutional imperative for expeditious justice, the court declined to grant further time for compliance. The court emphasized its duty to manage cases efficiently and directed that the trial proceed, with pretrial directions to be formalized in the prescribed template. The decision was anchored on the need to prevent further delay and to uphold the principles of fair and timely administration of justice.
Court Disposition
Further time for compliance denied; pretrial directions to be issued for expeditious trial.
Orders
- No further time for compliance is granted.
- The court will proceed to give directions on how the trial will proceed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
ELC SUIT NO. 126 OF 2012
STEPHEN MURIIRA MAKERO (as legal representative of
the estate of M'MAKERO KAENDO........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MOSES MUNGANIA …...................................................1ST DEFENDANT
JOYCE KINYA …..............................................................2ND DEFENDANT
STEPHEN MURIMI...........................................................3RD DEFENDANT
ROSE MUTHONI...............................................................4TH DEFENDANT
THE LAND ADJUDICATION OFFICER,
TIGANIA WEST DISTRICT...............................................5TH DEFENDANT
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL….............6TH DEFENDANT
ORDER/RULING
The matter was coming up today to confirm if the parties have complied with the Court's Orders of 09:11:16 Counsel for Plaintiff, Mr. D. Rimita has requested the Court to give a hearing date notwithstanding the fact that the other parties have not complied.
Mr. Kibiti has told the Court that on the part of 1st -4th defendant, there is full compliance.
Mr. Kiety for 5th and 6th defendants states that they are not adding much but prays for leave to put in any further documents.
A perusal of the Court's record show that this is an old matter where the plaint was filed way back on 22. 06. 12.
The issue of compliance dates (or lack of it) back to 23:07:15 and almost 4 years down the line, that issue is still running.
Pursuant to provisions of S. 1 A (3) of the Civil Procedure Act
“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 OF AND ORDERS OF THE COURT.
Further article 159 2 (b) of the Constitution requires that justice be expedited.
I also make reference to the case of Hunker Trading Company Ltd Vs ELF Oil Kenya Ltd Court of Appeal Nairobi. Civil App. No. 6 of 2010where the Court Made reference to the case of Mradula Suresh Kantaria and Surech Nanillal Kaptaria Civil Appeal No. 277 of 2005 (unreported) where it had been observed that:-
“ in this regard we believe one of the Principal purposes of the double “OO Principle “ is to enable the Court to take Case Management Principles to the Centre of the Court Process in each case coming before it so as to conduct proceedings in a manner which makes the attainment of justice FAIR, QUICK, and CHEAP”.
This Court is duty bound to carry out its mandate in accordance with the law (Constitution, statute and case law).
In light of the history of this case, I decline to allow any more time for compliance. The Court will proceed to give directions on how the trial will proceed, and the Pretrial Directions will be captured in the template dated 08. 03. 17.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 8TH MARCH, 2017
IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
CA: Janet
Rimita for the Plaintiff
Kibiti for 1st to 4th Defendants
kiety for 6th defendant -state
L.N. MBUGUA
JUDGE