[2021] KEELC 152 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 152 (KLR)

The court found that several key respondents were absent despite having knowledge of the scheduled directions. To ensure procedural fairness and compliance with the right to be heard, the court directed that the absent respondents be properly served with the orders issued. The court further granted the petitioners...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 152 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Tache Bonsa Gollo; Applicant: Patrick Halake Jaldesa; Applicant: Abdulrazaq Haji Adan; Applicant: Adan Happi Falana; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Defence; Respondent: Chief of Defence Forces; Respondent: Commander of Army; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary for Lands & Physical Planning; Respondent: National Land Commission; Respondent: Meru County Government
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Isiolo
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition E003 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Directions Ruling
Outcome
directions issued; timelines set for submissions; service of orders mandated
Legal Topics
Land Rights, Service of Process, Directions Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Constitutional Law Land Rights Service of Process Directions Orders

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

Tache Bonsa Gollo

Applicant

Patrick Halake Jaldesa

Applicant

Abdulrazaq Haji Adan

Applicant

Adan Happi Falana

Applicant

Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Defence

Respondent

Chief of Defence Forces

Respondent

Commander of Army

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Cabinet Secretary for Lands & Physical Planning

Respondent

National Land Commission

Respondent

Meru County Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Directions Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the absent respondents were properly served with the court's orders and directions.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioners should be granted time to file and exchange written submissions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that several key respondents were absent despite having knowledge of the scheduled directions. To ensure procedural fairness and compliance with the right to be heard, the court directed that the absent respondents be properly served with the orders issued. The court further granted the petitioners 30 days to file and exchange written submissions, with specific instructions on the format and mode of filing. The matter was set for further directions on a specified date, with the expectation that all parties would be properly served and prepared to proceed.

Court Disposition

directions issued; timelines set for submissions; service of orders mandated

Orders

  • Petitioners granted 30 days to file and exchange written submissions concerning the petition.
  • Submissions to be filed in both hard and soft copies, in word format font 12.