[2024] KECA 951 (KLR)

[2024] KECA 951 (KLR)

The court determined that, since neither party had filed submissions as previously directed, it was not possible to proceed with the hearing of the application. Pursuant to Rule 58(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, the court exercised its discretion to adjourn the matter. The application was therefore adjourned...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KECA 951 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter H Tenna; Applicant: Wycliffe Winston Waita; Respondent: Sarah Joslyn; Respondent: Nakuru County Land Registrar; Respondent: Nakuru County Surveyor; Respondent: Nakuru County Land Control Board; Respondent: Commissioner for Lands; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E148 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Leave to Appeal; Adjournment for Non Compliance With Filing Directions
Outcome
Application adjourned for case management due to non-compliance with filing directions.
Judges
WK Korir
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Adjournment of Hearing, Case Management, Non Compliance With Court Directions
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Adjournment of Hearing Case Management Non Compliance With Court Directions

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter H Tenna

Applicant

Wycliffe Winston Waita

Applicant

Sarah Joslyn

Respondent

Nakuru County Land Registrar

Respondent

Nakuru County Surveyor

Respondent

Nakuru County Land Control Board

Respondent

Commissioner for Lands

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Leave to Appeal; Adjournment for Non Compliance With Filing Directions

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal could proceed in the absence of parties' submissions as directed.
  2. 2 Whether the matter should be adjourned for case management due to non-compliance with filing directions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that, since neither party had filed submissions as previously directed, it was not possible to proceed with the hearing of the application. Pursuant to Rule 58(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, the court exercised its discretion to adjourn the matter. The application was therefore adjourned and directed to proceed for case management before a fresh hearing date is fixed.

Court Disposition

Application adjourned for case management due to non-compliance with filing directions.

Orders

  • The application is adjourned pursuant to Rule 58(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022.
  • The matter to proceed for case management before a fresh hearing date is fixed.