[2024] KEELC 6245 (KLR)
The court found that the 4th defendant had not identified any witness it intended to call during pretrial as required by the court's directions. The 4th defendant could not rely on summons issued at the request of the 1st to 3rd defendants to call a witness for cross-examination or otherwise. The court emphasized...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 6245 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Reuben Magondu Warirah; Defendant: The Deputy County Commissioner, Kasarani Sub County, Nairobi County; Defendant: The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry if Interior & Coordination of National Government; Defendant: The Honourable Attorney General; Defendant: National Government Constituencies Development Fund Board
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 119 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Adjournment Application
- Outcome
- Application for adjournment by the 4th defendant declined.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment of Hearing, Summoning of Witnesses, Trial Management
- 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
Reuben Magondu Warirah
Plaintiff
The Deputy County Commissioner, Kasarani Sub County, Nairobi County
Defendant
The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry if Interior & Coordination of National Government
Defendant
The Honourable Attorney General
Defendant
National Government Constituencies Development Fund Board
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Adjournment Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 4th defendant is entitled to an adjournment to call a witness for cross-examination.
- 2 Whether the 4th defendant can rely on summons issued at the request of the 1st to 3rd defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 4th defendant had not identified any witness it intended to call during pretrial as required by the court's directions. The 4th defendant could not rely on summons issued at the request of the 1st to 3rd defendants to call a witness for cross-examination or otherwise. The court emphasized that trial management and adherence to pretrial directions are essential for the orderly conduct of proceedings. Since the 1st to 3rd defendants' case had already been closed after their witness failed to appear, there was no basis for the 4th defendant's application for adjournment. The application was therefore declined.
Court Disposition
Application for adjournment by the 4th defendant declined.
Orders
- The application for adjournment by the 4th defendant is declined.
- The matter shall proceed without further adjournment on this ground.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Warirah v Deputy County Commissioner, Kasarani Sub County, Nairobi County & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 119 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 6245 (KLR) (17 September 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 6245 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 119 of 2020
LN Mbugua, J
September 17, 2024
Between
Reuben Magondu Warirah
Plaintiff
and
The Deputy County Commissioner, Kasarani Sub County, Nairobi County
1st Defendant
The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry if Interior & Coordination of National Government
2nd Defendant
The Honourable Attorney General
3rd Defendant
National Government Constituencies Development Fund Board
4th Defendant
Ruling
1. I have perused the entire record. I find that this court conducted pretrial on 9. 3.2023 whereby each party was directed to file/serve their paginated Trial bundle containing their witness statement and documents. At no time did the 4th defendant identify a witness whom they desired to call for purposes of cross examination only.
2. The records indicate that the Deputy County Commissioner was summoned to give testimony in this matter at the request of the 1st – 3rd defendants on 13. 7.2023, but eventually the said 1st – 3rd defendants informed the court that the summoned officer did not comply. The issue of summons was revisited on 23. 10. 2023 and eventually on 15. 5.2024, the court declined to adjourn the cases on the basis that a witness for 1st – 3rd defendants (the Deputy County Commissioner) was to appear in court. With that, the case of the lklklk1st – 3rd defendants was closed.
3. There is therefore no basis upon which the 4th defendant can ride on the summons which had been requested by the 1st – 3rd defendants to make a case to call “a certain witness” for cross examination or otherwise!
4. In that regard I decline to adjourn the case.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Mr. Lubulellah for the PlaintiffChilaka holding brief for Ms Kubai for 1st – 3rd defendantsAbidha for 4th DefendantCourt Assistant: Joan