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 341 of 2019· [2023] KEELC 20784 (KLR)

Seleka & 4 others v Leturesh & 16 others

Environment and Land Court
16 October 2023
LMLUCY N. MBUGUA
505 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to adjourn a land case because the defendants ignored court directions for over a year, showing courts will not reward delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a brief interlocutory ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (LN Mbugua, J) on an application for adjournment made by counsel for the 7th to 9th defendants - state and county land officials - on the ground that they had difficulties reaching their clients. The application was opposed by counsel for the plaintiffs and supported by counsel for the 1st to 3rd defendants. The court reviewed the record: at a pre-trial directions hearing on 26 July 2022, counsel Motari for the 7th to 9th defendants had sought 21 days to comply with Order 11 obligations; the court granted 45 days and fixed further pre-trial directions for 31 January 2023, but the defendants never attended court again. Citing Virginia Kathambi Maingi v Nicholas Mwatika & 2 others on the purpose of practice directions, and its own earlier decision in Moschion v Mwangi holding that the right to be heard is available only to parties who do not drive themselves from the seat of justice, the court held that the defendants had had one year and three months to prepare for trial but had never bothered to appear, and were even unsure whether their pleadings had been served. The court declined the adjournment and, in the same breath, declined counsel's application to cease acting. The ruling was dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi on 16 October 2023 via Microsoft Teams. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an adjournment should be granted to parties who have persistently failed to attend pre-trial directions

Holding

Adjournment declined; parties who have ignored the court's directions and failed to appear cannot claim difficulty reaching their clients as a basis for delay

Reasoning

The court noted that the 7th to 9th defendants had been given 45 days to comply with Order 11 obligations at a pre-trial directions hearing on 26 July 2022 and the matter was set for further directions on 31 January 2023, but the defendants never appeared again. They had one year and three months to prepare yet did not bother to attend, and were even unsure whether their pleadings had been served. The court applied its own precedent that the right to be heard is lost by parties who drive themselves from the seat of justice.

p. 2
02

Whether counsel for the 7th to 9th defendants should be allowed to cease acting

Holding

The application to cease acting was declined alongside the adjournment application

Reasoning

Counsel sought both an adjournment and leave to cease acting on the ground of difficulty reaching clients. The court declined both prayers in the same breath, treating counsel's difficulties as self-inflicted through the clients' prolonged non-attendance and non-cooperation since July 2022. No separate reasoning was given for the refusal to cease acting beyond the same circumstances.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The right to be heard is available only to parties who do not drive themselves from the seat of justice
  • Practice directions on pre-trial directions exist to facilitate progress and avoid stagnation in dispute resolution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The prayer for adjournment by counsel for the 7th to 9th defendants is declined
  2. 2.The application by counsel for the 7th to 9th defendants to cease acting is declined

Authorities

#

Cases cited (2)

  • Virginia Kathambi Maingi v Nicholas Mwatika & 2 others
    [2021] eKLR

    That practice directions act as a reflux value to facilitate progress and avoid stagnation in resolution of disputes

  • Moschion v Mwangi
    (ELC Case No 350 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 17144 (KLR)

    That the right to be heard is sacrosanct but only available to parties who do not drive themselves from the seat of justice

Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (not expressly stated in the ruling)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Seleka & 4 others v Leturesh & 16 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 341 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/20784/eng@2023-10-16

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