Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2024] KEELC 4036 (KLR)

Grimaldi v Itakey Investments Limited & another (Environment & Land Case 154 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 4036 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 May 2024
MNMwangi Njoroge
328 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

#

A Kenyan land court dismissed a bid to add an expert witness simply because the party missed court-ordered filing deadlines.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a notice of motion dated 1st March 2024, the 1st Defendant sought leave to call Mr. Kiarie Kariuki as an expert witness, together with necessary directions and costs in the cause. The application was supported by an affidavit of Antonella Braccini, who deposed that the real controversy turned on the interpretation of a private deed of agreement dated 29th September 2013 between the 1st and 2nd Defendants and a court order issued on 30th April 2014 in Mombasa High Court Commercial Case No. 135 of 2013 (OS) (the 'Mombasa case'). Mr. Kiarie Kariuki had acted as advocate for the Defendants in that case and had drafted the deed; the 1st Defendant's advocates stated they had inadvertently omitted him from the amended statement of defence. On 7th March 2024 the court directed the Respondent to respond within 7 days, and submissions to be filed by the applicant within 14 days and the Respondent within 21 days, running concurrently. On the hearing date, the court perused its records and found that no response or written submissions had been filed by either party and that the timelines had lapsed. Holding that the application had not complied with the court's directions, Mwangi Njoroge J dismissed the application dated 1st March 2024 in its entirety for want of compliance. The ruling was delivered electronically at Malindi on 20th May 2024. No costs order was pronounced.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 1st Defendant's application for leave to call an expert witness could be sustained despite non-compliance with the court's directions

Holding

The application was dismissed for want of compliance with the directions issued on 7th March 2024, as no response or submissions were filed by either party.

Reasoning

On 7th March 2024 the court directed the Respondent to respond within 7 days and submissions to be filed by the applicant and Respondent within 14 and 21 days respectively, running concurrently. The court perused its records and found no response or written submissions filed by either party; the timelines had lapsed. Non-compliance with court directions therefore warranted dismissal of the application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who fails to comply with the court's directions on filing responses and submissions within the stipulated timelines risks dismissal of the application.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 1/3/24 is dismissed for want of compliance with the court's directions
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Grimaldi v Itakey Investments Limited & another (Environment & Land Case 154 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 4036 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4036/eng@2024-05-20

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