[2019] KEELC 5033 (KLR)
The court found that the orders made on 31st August 2017 did not bar the parties from filing necessary applications, but only discouraged unnecessary interlocutory applications. The application for leave to amend the defence could not be classified as unnecessary, and thus the applicant's argument that the review...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 5033 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Titus Gethi Ndegwa; Defendant: Gichuhi Ndirangu Macharia
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 308 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Interlocutory Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Interlocutory Applications, Amendment of Pleadings
- 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
Titus Gethi Ndegwa
Plaintiff
Gichuhi Ndirangu Macharia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Interlocutory Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for review of the orders made on 31st August 2017 under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the application for review constitutes an abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the orders made on 31st August 2017 did not bar the parties from filing necessary applications, but only discouraged unnecessary interlocutory applications. The application for leave to amend the defence could not be classified as unnecessary, and thus the applicant's argument that the review was required to enable him to prosecute his amendment application was without merit. The applicant failed to demonstrate any sufficient grounds for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
ELC SUIT NO. 308 OF 2010
TITUS GETHI NDEGWA...............................................PLAINTIFF
=VERSUS=
GICHUHI NDIRANGU MACHARIA.......................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The defendant/applicant filed a notice of motion on 1st November seeking review of the orders of Lady Justice Gacheru made on 31st August 2017. The applicant contends that he has filed an application for leave to amend his defence and that the application cannot be heard unless the orders of 31st August 2017 are set aside.
2. In the ruling of 31st August 2017, the judge directed the parties to cease filing unnecessary interlocutory applications but instead go for the main hearing.
3. The applicant’s application was opposed by the plaintiff/respondent based on a replying affidavit sworn on 18th January 2019. The respondent contends that this application is an abuse of the process of the court and that it is only meant to delay the finalization of this case. The respondent further contends that the application does not meet the threshold of review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
4. I have considered the applicant’s application as well as the opposition to the same by the respondent. I have also considered the submissions by the parties. The only issue for determination is whether the applicant has established grounds for review. I have looked at the ruling which is sought to be reviewed. The ruling directed the parties to cease filing of unnecessary interlocutory applications. The court did not stop parties from filing any application. What was stopped are unnecessary applications. An application for leave to amend cannot be categorized as being unnecessary. I therefore find no merit in this application which is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and delivered at Nairobi on this 21stday of March 2019.
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Mr. Waiganjo for Defendant/Applicant
M/s Aisha for Plaintiff/Respondent
Court Assistant: Hilda
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE