Amoth & 3 others v Dolu & 4 others
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court threw out an application to strike out an adverse possession claim because the applicants' lawyer was never served with it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the striking-out motion should be dismissed where there is no evidence of service and both parties are absent
The court dismissed the notice of motion in the interest of justice, noting the absence of service on the applicants' counsel and the absence of both parties without explanation.
The court observed that there was no indication the notice of motion was ever served on the applicants' counsel. The motion had been fixed for hearing further to the court's orders of October 25, 2022, and the parties were notified by the Deputy Registrar via email. Both parties were absent with no reason given. In the interest of justice, as earlier noted in the court's proceedings of October 25, 2022, the motion was dismissed with costs in the cause.
Legal principles established
#- A notice of motion not shown to have been served on the opposing counsel may be dismissed in the interest of justice.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated June 19, 2022 is dismissed
- 2.Costs in the cause
- 3.The Deputy Registrar to notify the parties for directions on February 8, 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court Act, Article 162(2) of the Constitution (not expressly cited in the ruling)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amoth & 3 others v Dolu & 4 others", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Case 16 of 2021 (formerly Migori ELC Case No 13 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15622/eng@2022-11-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.