[2022] KEELC 1518 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's application for a site visit was not merited in the circumstances, as the existing orders of 8th March 2013 were clear and binding on the parties. The court emphasized that the purpose of the orders is to preserve the suit land and maintain the status quo pending the hearing and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 1518 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Were Odhul; Defendant: Shem Owuor Othina
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 31 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Ruling on Application for Site Visit and Compliance With Previous Orders
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application for a site visit disallowed; parties ordered to comply with previous status quo orders.
- Legal Topics
- Status Quo Orders, Compliance With Court Orders, Preservation of Suit Property
- 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
Were Odhul
Plaintiff
Shem Owuor Othina
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Ruling on Application for Site Visit and Compliance With Previous Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's application for a site visit to confirm compliance with the court's orders of 8th March 2013 is merited.
- 2 Whether the status quo over the suit land should be maintained pending determination of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's application for a site visit was not merited in the circumstances, as the existing orders of 8th March 2013 were clear and binding on the parties. The court emphasized that the purpose of the orders is to preserve the suit land and maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The defendant's counsel undertook to comply with the orders, and the court saw no sufficient reason to grant the additional relief sought by the plaintiff. The operative principle is that parties must comply with subsisting court orders, and the court will not grant duplicative or unnecessary interlocutory relief where adequate orders are already in...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application for a site visit disallowed; parties ordered to comply with previous status quo orders.
Orders
- The parties to comply with this court’s orders of 8th March 2013 which are restated.
- The parties to maintain the status quo over the suit land in line with the previous court orders, pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT HOMA BAY
ELCC NO. 31 OF 2021
WERE ODHUL...................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SHEM OWUOR OTHINA.............................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. I have heard the plaintiff in person and the defendant’s counsel, Mr. Oyoo, in respect of proposed visit to the disputed parcel of land, LR No. Kanyamwa/K/K/Kadwet/1469 (the suit land herein) to confirm compliance with orders of 8th March 2013 granted by this court. That there are activities going on at the suit land contrary to the said orders.
2. The defendant’s counsel has informed this court that the defendant and himself were made aware of the orders during the last hearing of this suit. That he undertakes to ensure that status quo over the suit land is maintained.
3. I take into account the ruling of 8th March 2013 made in the presence of Were Odhul (PW1) who is the plaintiff and in the absence of the defendant. The orders therein are very clear. The nature of suit is noted, too.
4. In the result, I find the prayer by the plaintiff (PW1) not merited in the obtaining scenario. I disallow the same.
5. For clarity, I order and direct thus:
a) The parties to comply with this court’s orders of 8th March 2013 which I hereby restate.
b) The orders referred to at paragraph (a) herein above are meant to preserve the suit land as held in the case of Hutchings Biermer Limited –versus- Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited and 2 others (2006) eKLRhence, the parties to maintain the status quo over the suit land in line with the previous court orders, pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
6. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT HOMA BAY THIS 25TH JANUARY 2022
G.M.A ONG’ONDO
JUDGE
Present;
a) Mr. Oyoo learned counsel for the defendant.
b) Plaintiff, present in person.
c) Okello, court assistant.
G.M.A ONG’ONDO
JUDGE