[2024] KEELC 5041 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to comply with clear court orders requiring the filing and service of the record of appeal, despite being duly served and made aware of the orders. The court determined that the appellant had been accorded a fair opportunity to prosecute the appeal but failed to take...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 5041 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Toncap Investment; Respondent: LN Property Development Co Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/non Compliance
- Outcome
- appeal struck out for non-compliance with court orders
- Judges
- GMA Ongondo
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Striking Out, Non Compliance With Court Orders, Service of Process, Costs Award
- 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
Toncap Investment
Appellant
LN Property Development Co Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/non Compliance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be struck out for non-compliance with court orders to file and serve the record of appeal.
- 2 Whether the appellant was properly served and accorded a fair opportunity to prosecute the appeal.
- 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to comply with clear court orders requiring the filing and service of the record of appeal, despite being duly served and made aware of the orders. The court determined that the appellant had been accorded a fair opportunity to prosecute the appeal but failed to take necessary steps. In line with constitutional and statutory mandates for expeditious justice and adherence to procedural rules, the court held that the respondent's application to strike out the appeal was merited. The appeal was accordingly struck out with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
appeal struck out for non-compliance with court orders
Orders
- The appeal is hereby struck out with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Toncap Investment v LN Property Development Co Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5041 (KLR) (3 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 5041 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2023
GMA Ongondo, J
July 3, 2024
Between
Toncap Investment
Appellant
and
Ln Property Development Co Limited
Respondent
(An appeal from the judgment of the Honourable Tribunal in Nairobi Business Tribunal Case No 26 of 2016 (Kisii) as was delivered vide ruling made on the 2nd December 2019. )
Ruling
1. The appellant, Toncap Investment through Aluoch Odera and Nyauke Advocates, originated the present appeal by way of an amended memorandum of appeal dated 20th November 2023 based on two grounds namely;a.The Honourable Business Premises erred in proceedings to tax the Landlords Bill Ex-parte when there was no justifiable grounds to do so.b.The bill in question is excessive and not justifiable at all.
2. Wherefore, the appellant prayed for:a.Order allowing this Appeal and quashing the Ex-parte order allowing the Landlords’ Bill of Costs and thereafter re-submit the Bill for assessment by the Tribunal.b.Costs of this Appeal and interest thereon until payment in full
3. Mr. H. Kabiru learned counsel for the respondent has informed the court that;“We served the appellants counsel vide affidavit of service sworn on 23rd May 2024. No record filed and served upon us. Therefore, I pray that this appeal be struck out for non-compliance with orders of 8th February 2024 and 20th May 2024 with costs to the respondent.”
4. By the court orders given on 8th February 2024, the appellant’s counsel was to file and serve record of appeal herein. The court extended the orders on 20th May 2024. However, there is non- compliance with the said orders.
5. The appellant’s counsel was duly served as revealed in affidavit of service sworn on 23rd May 2024 by Peter Muendo Keli, an authorised process server hence, made aware of the existence of the appeal and orders herein; see Ogada v Mollin [2009] eKLR.
6So, the appellant has been accorded a fair opportunity in this appeal as provided for under Articles 48 and 50 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; see also James Kanyiita Nderitu and Another v Marios Philotas Ghikas and another [2016] eKLR.
7. Article 159 (2) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and sections 3 and 19 of the Environment and Land Court 2015 [2011] stipulate that justice shall not be delayed.
8. The upshot is that the application by learned counsel for the respondent is merited and this appeal is hereby struck out with costs to the respondent.
9. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT HOMA BAY THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2024G M A ONGONDOJUDGEPresent;1. H. Kabiru learned counsel for the respondent2. T. Luanga, court assistant