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 provided judgment· [2019] KEELC 3953 (KLR)

Mutegi Mugwetwa v County Ministry of Lands, Physical Planning Energy & ICT County Government of Tharaka Nithi & 5 others;Chuka Igambang’ombe Development Association (Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 3953 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (Environment and Land Court seating at Chuka)
1 April 2019
PNP. M. Njoroge
345 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

#

A Kenyan court confirmed that judges can decide who files written submissions first, because civil procedure rules on hearings don't cover written submissions.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a brief interlocutory direction delivered by P. M. Njoroge J at Chuka on 1st April 2019, after oral hearing of the suit was closed and the parties agreed to file and exchange written submissions. Advocate Martin Njeru, for the plaintiff, argued that Order 18 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules suggested that the defendants should file and exchange written submissions first, while counsel for the other parties asked for directions. The court reproduced Order 18 Rules 1 and 2, which govern the order of stating cases and producing evidence at a hearing, and noted that Rule 2 uses the permissive word 'may' twice with respect to addressing the court and replying. The court held that these rules relate to proceedings conducted orally and do not embrace written submissions, and that the court nevertheless has the discretion to direct how the parties should move. Exercising that discretion, the court ordered that the plaintiff file and exchange written submissions within 21 days of the ruling, with all other parties to file within 21 days of receipt of the plaintiff's submissions; that all submissions be filed in both hard and soft copies; and that the parties, by consent, attend court for directions on 22nd May 2019. No costs order was made and the substantive suit remains pending. The document is a directions ruling rather than a final determination of the claim.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Order 18 Rule 2 requires the defendants to file written submissions first

Holding

No. Order 18 Rules 1 and 2 apply to oral hearings, not written submissions, and the court has discretion to direct the filing sequence.

Reasoning

The court reproduced Order 18 Rules 1 and 2, which set out the order in which parties state their cases and produce evidence at an oral hearing. It observed that Rule 2 uses the permissive word 'may' regarding addressing the court and replying. Since the rules relate to proceedings conducted orally and do not embrace written submissions, the advocate's argument based on Rule 2 did not bind the court, which exercised its discretion to direct that the plaintiff file submissions first.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The court retains discretion to direct the sequence in which parties file written submissions, notwithstanding the default sequence in Order 18 Rule 2
  • Order 18 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules govern oral proceedings and do not govern written submissions

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff to file and exchange written submissions within 21 days of the ruling, and all other parties to do so within 21 days after receipt of the plaintiff's written submissions
  2. 2.All submissions to be filed both in hard and soft copies
  3. 3.Parties, by consent, to come to court for directions on 22nd May, 2019

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 18 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 18 Rule 2
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent direction-making powers in a first-instance suit under the Civil Procedure Rules (Order 18 Rules 1 and 2)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mutegi Mugwetwa v County Ministry of Lands, Physical Planning Energy & ICT County Government of Tharaka Nithi & 5 others;Chuka Igambang’ombe Development Association (Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 3953 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the provided judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3953/eng@2019-04-01

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