SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Republic v Lands Demarcation Officer Amwathi/Maua Adjudication Unit & another; M’birithia Kithongo & 8 others (Interested Parties) Ex parte M’ Lingera M’tuaruchiu [2019] KEELC 26 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 26 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
26
Citation
[2019] KEELC 26 (KLR)
Decided
10 December 2019
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx parte application for leave to challenge a decision and for orders of prohibition and certiorariCoramHON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA, ELC JUDGE
The Preliminary objection by the 1st and 3rd interested parties is dismissed with costs to the ex-parte applicant.

Facts

The ex-parte applicant filed an application for leave to challenge a decision made by the 2nd Respondent in objection case no. 668/97, seeking orders of prohibition and certiorari.

Issues

  • Whether the Notice of Motion application was filed contrary to the provisions of Order 53 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  • Whether the decision sought to be quashed was verified by an affidavit as required by Order 53 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  • Whether the interested parties were properly served with the pleadings and were party to the decision

Reasoning

The application was well placed and within the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant satisfied the threshold required under Order 53 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules by attaching a copy of the decision.

Outcome

The ex-parte applicant's application for leave to challenge the decision and for orders of prohibition and certiorari is granted.

Orders

  • The court directs that the application be heard on priority basis.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Law Reform Act
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case