[2015] KEELC 292 (KLR)

[2015] KEELC 292 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to pay the required adjournment fees as previously ordered and were absent from court on the day scheduled for hearing of the main motion for judicial review. The applicants' absence and non-compliance with the court's directions indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELC 292 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Tabutany C. Chepkwony; Applicant: David C. Milgo; Applicant: Reuben K. Milgo; Applicant: Joseph K. Milgo; Respondent: Alice Cherono Bii; Respondent: The Chairman Londiani Land Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: The Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kericho
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kericho
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 25 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion for Judicial Review; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
judicial review motion dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondents
Judges
MA Silau
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Review Procedure, Adjournment Fees, Land Disputes Tribunal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Judicial Review Procedure Adjournment Fees Land Disputes Tribunal

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tabutany C. Chepkwony

Applicant

David C. Milgo

Applicant

Reuben K. Milgo

Applicant

Joseph K. Milgo

Applicant

Alice Cherono Bii

Respondent

The Chairman Londiani Land Disputes Tribunal

Respondent

The Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kericho

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion for Judicial Review; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the judicial review motion should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-payment of adjournment fees and non-attendance by the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to pay the required adjournment fees as previously ordered and were absent from court on the day scheduled for hearing of the main motion for judicial review. The applicants' absence and non-compliance with the court's directions indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the judicial review motion for want of prosecution, awarding costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

judicial review motion dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The judicial review motion is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.