Kinyanjui v Karumi; Mbuthia & 2 others (Interested Parties)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court set aside a Ksh 10,000 adjournment costs order after the party proved he had actually served his pleadings by email.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the adjournment costs order of February 6, 2023 should be set aside
The order was set aside because the 3rd interested party demonstrated, through uncontroverted evidence, that the parties had in fact been served with his pleadings.
The court held that setting aside an order is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously as in Shah v Mbogo. The applicant laid a basis by annexing evidence (JNK 1-4) confirming service by email on July 24, 2021, October 27, 2021 and October 8, 2022. The evidence was uncontroverted and the application unopposed. Guided by Articles 48, 50 and 159(2)(d) and the substantive justice provisions of the ELC Act and Civil Procedure Act, the court allowed prayer 1.
Legal principles established
#- The decision whether to set aside or review an order of the court is within the court's wide discretion, to be exercised judiciously, and a basis for its exercise must be laid by the applicant.
Court orders
#- 1.The order directing the payment of adjournment costs of Ksh 10,000/- is set aside
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 48, 50 and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; sections 3, 4 and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kinyanjui v Karumi; Mbuthia & 2 others (Interested Parties)", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 126 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/17036/eng@2023-04-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.