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· [2019] KEELC 3909 (KLR)

Barua Gituma & 6 others v National Land Commission & 3 others [2019] KEELC 3909 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 April 2019
PNP. M. Njoroge
228 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 gave the National Land Commission one last chance to be heard before deciding a land petition against it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short interlocutory directions ruling delivered by P. M. Njoroge J of the Environment and Land Court at Chuka on 8 April 2019. The issue before the court was the serial non-attendance of the 1st Respondent, the National Land Commission, in a petition in which the petitioners sought determinations apparently engaging the Commission. Mr. Mwiti, counsel for the petitioners, reiterated that the Commission had always been served with the proceedings. Mr. Kiongo, Senior State Counsel appearing for the Attorney General for the 2nd to 4th Respondents, submitted that the National Land Commission's participation was an important aspect of the suit. The court agreed that fairness required giving the Commission a last opportunity to present its side of the case before the petition proceeded to judgment. It therefore ordered the petitioners to serve the day's orders upon the National Land Commission within ten days; granted all respondents and the Interested Parties thirty days to file and exchange submissions, in both hard and soft copies; and, by consent, fixed directions to confirm compliance and to fix a judgment date for 6 May 2019. The ruling contains no determination of the substantive petition, no costs order and no citation of authorities. Counsel appearing were Jessie Mwiti, Kinoti Kirera and Kirimi Gituma for the petitioners, J. M. Kiongo for the 2nd to 4th Respondents, and Kaimenyi Kithinji for the Interested Parties.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit should proceed to judgment despite the National Land Commission's serial non-attendance

Holding

The court declined to proceed against the non-attending 1st Respondent and instead directed that the orders be served on it again, granting all respondents and interested parties time to file submissions

Reasoning

Counsel for the petitioners confirmed that the National Land Commission had always been served with the proceedings. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that the Commission's participation was important to the suit. The court agreed that fairness required giving the Commission a last opportunity to be heard before the matter proceeded to judgment, and made consequential directions on service, submissions and a judgment date by consent.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A party that has been duly served but has serially failed to attend should, as a matter of fair hearing, be given a last chance to present its case before determination

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petitioners to serve the orders issued by the court today upon the 1st Respondent, the National Land Commission, within the next 10 days
  2. 2.All respondents and the Interested Parties granted 30 days to file and exchange their submissions
  3. 3.All submissions to be filed in both hard and soft copies
  4. 4.By consent, directions to confirm compliance and to fix a date for judgment on 6th May, 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in the judgment (first-instance petition before the Environment and Land Court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Barua Gituma & 6 others v National Land Commission & 3 others [2019] KEELC 3909 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3909/eng@2019-04-08

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