Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated on the record provided· [2023] KEELC 693 (KLR)

Muthithi Investments Limited v Kioko (Environment & Land Case 1 of 2019) [2023] KEELC 693 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (sitting at Nairobi)
9 February 2023
LMLUCY N. MBUGUA
240 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

#

The High Court of Kenya allowed a first-time adjournment of an old petition but made the petitioner pay costs and witness expenses for the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a brief interlocutory ruling by Lucy N. Mbugua, Judge, delivered at Nairobi on 9 February 2023, dealing with an application by the petitioners to adjourn the hearing of an old petition. The court reviewed the history of the matter and found that the prolonged delay in prosecuting the petition was primarily attributable to the respondent, who had been given six opportunities to comply with orders to file pleadings by 27 January 2020, with the court warning that the matter would proceed as an undefended claim on any further non-compliance. The court further noted that precise directions on how the suit was to proceed were only issued on 7 July 2022, meaning that the present application was the petitioners' first request for an adjournment. Balancing these factors, and considering that counsel for the petitioner was engaged in Tribunal hearings, the court allowed the adjournment. However, it imposed conditions: the petitioner was condemned to pay costs to the respondent's advocate as per the remuneration order, and the respondent's witness was awarded Ksh. 2,000, it being still early morning. The ruling was delivered virtually through Microsoft Teams, with Ouma appearing for the petitioner and H. Kinyanjui for the respondent. No substantive determination of the petition was made; the disposition is purely procedural.

Key legal issues

#
01

Adjournment of hearing in an old matter

Holding

Adjournment allowed as this was the petitioners' first application, with costs awarded to the respondent

Reasoning

The court found the historical delay in prosecuting the petition was primarily caused by the respondent, who repeatedly failed to file pleadings, necessitating a warning that the matter would proceed as an undefended claim. Clear hearing directions were only given on July 7, 2022, making this the petitioners' first adjournment application. Counsel's involvement in Tribunal hearings justified the indulgence, subject to costs and witness compensation.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.Adjournment of the hearing granted
    2. 2.Petitioner condemned to pay costs to the respondent's advocate as per the remuneration order
    3. 3.Respondent's witness awarded Ksh. 2,000

    Authorities

    #

    Legislation

    • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderNot specified (referred to as 'the remuneration order')
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Not stated on the record; the matter is described as a petition and referred to as 'the suit'

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Muthithi Investments Limited v Kioko (Environment & Land Case 1 of 2019) [2023] KEELC 693 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated on the record provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/693/eng@2023-02-09

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