Charles Kiunga M’mboroki (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of M’kiunga M’mbogori – Deceased) v Meru University of Science and Technology & 3 others [2018] KEELC 1673 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Meru dismissed an attempt to reopen how a land petition would be heard, ruling the issue had already been decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court could revisit the direction that the petition be heard by written submissions
The application was not merited and was dismissed
The request for oral evidence had been made before Judge Njoroge on 27.6.2018 and determined by a ruling that affidavit evidence and submissions could demonstrate the alleged constitutional violations. The issue was therefore spent. Counsel had also been granted leave to file a further affidavit and submissions within 30 days, which the applicants failed to comply with, only to return four and a half years after filing suit.
Legal principles established
#- Where a court has already made a ruling on a mode-of-hearing request, a fresh application on the same issue is spent and an abuse of the process
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 23.7.2018 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original petition alleging violations of constitutional provisions (Environment and Land Court original jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charles Kiunga M’mboroki (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of M’kiunga M’mbogori – Deceased) v Meru University of Science and Technology & 3 others [2018] KEELC 1673 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1673/eng@2018-10-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.