Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the excerpt provided· [2017] KEELC 200 (KLR)

David Kiogora Kirimania v Miringu Muchai Ikabu & another [2017] KEELC 200 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 October 2017
LML.N. Mbugua
181 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Meru allowed a reply filed one day late, confirming that minor filing delays will rarely get a party shut out.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Meru delivered by Hon. L.N. Mbugua, ELC Judge, on 17 October 2017. The court had, on 9 October 2017, directed the respondent to file and serve a response within 7 days. The replying affidavit was instead filed and served on the date of the ruling, one day out of time. The court held that it retains inherent jurisdiction to make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice, citing the High Court decision in Interactive Ganning and Lotteries Limited v Flint East Africa and 2 Others, NBI HCC 115 of 2011. Finding that a delay of one day was not inordinate, the judge allowed the replying affidavit to be admitted as part of the record. The court then gave directions that the application be canvassed by way of written submissions and fixed mention on 4 December 2017 for submissions. No costs order was made. The ruling is interlocutory in nature; it decides the procedural question of admitting an out-of-time affidavit and sets a timetable, and does not determine the substantive dispute between the plaintiff and the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent's replying affidavit filed one day late should be admitted

Holding

The affidavit was admitted; the one-day delay was not inordinate and the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to admit it.

Reasoning

The court noted that on 9.10.17 it had directed the respondent to file and serve the response within 7 days. The replying affidavit was filed and served on the ruling date, one day late. Relying on Interactive Ganning and Lotteries Limited v Flint East Africa and 2 Others, the court held it retains inherent jurisdiction to issue orders meeting the ends of justice, and the short delay was not inordinate.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court retains inherent jurisdiction to make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice, including admitting filings made slightly out of time
  • A one-day delay in filing a response is not inordinate delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The replying affidavit filed and served out of time is allowed and admitted as part of the record
  2. 2.The application to be canvassed by way of filing submissions
  3. 3.Mention on 4.12.17 for submissions

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • Interactive Ganning and Lotteries Limited vs Flint East Africa and 2 Others
    NBI HCC 115 OF 2011
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the court to make orders necessary to meet the ends of justice

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David Kiogora Kirimania v Miringu Muchai Ikabu & another [2017] KEELC 200 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/200/eng@2017-10-17

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.