Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2018] KEELC 4640 (KLR)

African Inland Church Kenya (Trustees Registered) v Naomi Enyang & another [2018] KEELC 4640 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 January 2018
MNMwangi Njoroge
227 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that parties who agreed to a surveyor's report cannot reject it later; challenges must happen through cross-examination at the hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kitale, delivered by Mwangi Njoroge J on 25 January 2018, deals with an interlocutory dispute in an ongoing suit: objections by some of the parties to the adoption of a surveyor's report. The report had been filed pursuant to a consent entered into by the parties on 27 July 2016, under which it was prepared by a joint team comprising the County Physical Planner, the Town Administrator for Turkana and the County Surveyor. The court examined the report and, having heard the parties on the objection, declined to reject it. Mwangi Njoroge J held that there was no convincing reason to reject a report whose necessity had been agreed upon by all parties. The court further observed that any party wishing to challenge the veracity of the report's contents retained the remedy of cross-examining its makers or otherwise demonstrating why it was not valid. On that basis the objections were dismissed as premature, and the court directed that the suit be listed for hearing on a priority basis. The ruling was delivered in the absence of counsel for the parties, who had notice of the delivery date but did not attend. No costs order was made. The judgment names no authorities and cites no statutes.

Key legal issues

#
01

Adoption of a surveyor's report filed pursuant to consent of the parties

Holding

The objections to the report were dismissed as premature; the report whose necessity was agreed by all parties is to stand, with any challenge left to cross-examination at the hearing

Reasoning

The report was filed pursuant to a consent dated 27/7/2016 and prepared by a joint team comprising the County Physical Planner, the Town Administrator Turkana and the County Surveyor. The court found no convincing reason to reject a report whose necessity all parties had agreed upon, holding that questions of its veracity are evidentiary matters properly tested at the hearing through cross-examination of its makers.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A party objecting to a jointly commissioned report may challenge it by cross-examining its makers or otherwise demonstrating why it is not valid, rather than resisting its adoption at the threshold

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The objections to the surveyor's report are dismissed as premature
  2. 2.The suit is to be listed for hearing on a priority basis
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in the judgment; the court proceeds under its inherent powers to regulate its own proceedings in an ongoing suit

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "African Inland Church Kenya (Trustees Registered) v Naomi Enyang & another [2018] KEELC 4640 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/4640/eng@2018-01-25

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