Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherEnvironment & Land Case E4 of 2020· [2023] KEELC 17058 (KLR)

Mbugua v Kariha & 21 others

Environment and Land Court
26 April 2023
FNFM Njoroge
718 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nakuru land court adjourned a hearing involving 23 defendants and created a notice-board system for serving those who never responded.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling by FM Njoroge, J of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru in a land suit in which Zephania Gitau Mbugua sues Chege Nganga Kariha, Silvaline Investment Limited, the Chief Lands Registrar and nineteen other defendants. At a scheduled hearing, Mr Gichigi, counsel newly instructed by the 4th, 7th and 19th defendants, sought an adjournment to file responses; Ms Mwaniki indicated that counsel for the 20th defendant could not attend due to a personal emergency. The court noted that an injunctive order existed over the suit land and that the represented defendants were said to be settled on it. Deeming counsel an officer of the court speaking truthfully, and finding no reason to believe the 7th and 19th defendants knew of the hearing date, the judge exercised abundant caution and adjourned the hearing. The court also granted an allowance for the 20th defendant's counsel's emergency. To prevent recurring objections about service on non-appearing defendants, the court issued a standing direction: the plaintiff must advertise every hearing notice by conspicuous affixation on the court's notice board with the Deputy Registrar's leave, file proof before each sitting, whereupon all who had not filed appearance or defence would be deemed properly served. The 4th, 7th and 19th defendants were granted 14 days to file responses; mention was set for 31 May 2023. Costs of the day were awarded to the plaintiff against all defendants except the 5th, 8th, 21st and 22nd.

Key legal issues

#
01

Adjournment in the face of newly instructed counsel

Holding

The court adjourned, deeming counsel an officer of the court stating truthfully and finding no reason to believe the 7th and 19th defendants knew of the hearing date

Reasoning

The court noted an injunctive order existed over the suit land and that the represented defendants were said to be settled on it. Proceeding without their documents filed would carry significant ramifications, so the court exercised its discretion and abundant caution to grant the adjournment sought.

02

Service on non-appearing defendants

Holding

Future hearings to proceed on advertised service: notice affixed on the court notice board with Deputy Registrar's leave, proof filed before each sitting

Reasoning

To obviate repeated objections that no specific orders had been made permitting hearing without service on non-appearing defendants, the court crafted a standing service mechanism by advertisement, deeming all who had not filed appearance or defence properly served for each advertised sitting.

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may adjourn a hearing where newly-on-record counsel for absent defendants requires time, exercising abundant caution given the ramifications of proceeding without their documents
  • Where defendants have not entered appearance, service may be effected by advertisement of the hearing notice on the court notice board, with proof filed before each sitting

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The hearing is adjourned
  2. 2.The plaintiff shall, whenever the matter is fixed for mention or hearing, advertise the hearing notice by affixing it conspicuously on the court's notice board with leave of the Deputy Registrar, and file proof of such advertisement before each sitting; all who have not filed appearance or defence shall be deemed properly served for each advertised sitting
  3. 3.All defendants save the 5th, 22nd, 8th and 21st defendants shall bear the plaintiff's costs of the day in any event
  4. 4.The 4th, 7th and 19th defendants granted leave to file and serve their responses and all other documents within 14 days
  5. 5.Mention on 31/5/2023 to confirm compliance
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mbugua v Kariha & 21 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case E4 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/17058/eng@2023-04-26

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