Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2024] KEELC 6687 (KLR)

Petitioners v 2nd and 3rd Respondents (Application to Set Aside Status Quo Orders)

Environment and Land Court
26 September 2024
MMM.D. Mwangi
741 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (M.D. Mwangi, J) determines an application dated 15th April 2024 by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents seeking to set aside status quo orders issued on 26th January 2024 in a pending constitutional Petition. The background is that on 24th January 2024, the Petitioners indicated they were amenable to compromising their interim conservatory application in favour of expedited hearing of the Petition, provided status quo orders were maintained. The 2nd Respondent's counsel was not averse to maintenance of status quo, and on that understanding the court issued the status quo orders on 26th January 2024. On 6th May 2024, however, the 2nd Respondent instructed counsel to file the present application to set aside those orders. The court canvassed the application by written submissions and framed a sole issue: whether the application was merited. Relying on Article 159 of the Constitution, Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act and Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Mutunga Rules, the court held that the application did not further the overriding objective of just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of disputes; rather, it unduly delayed the Petition. The status quo order had been granted in exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction precisely to give way to expedited hearing of the Petition. The court disallowed the application with no orders as to costs and directed that parties be given a date to highlight written submissions on the main Petition without further ado.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application to set aside the status quo orders was merited

Holding

The application was disallowed because it did not further the overriding objective and had the effect of unduly delaying the expedited hearing of the main Petition

Reasoning

The court noted that the status quo order of 26th January 2024 had been issued by consent and understanding of the parties to facilitate expedited hearing of the Petition in lieu of the Petitioners' interim conservatory application. The 2nd Respondent's belated application to set it aside ran counter to Article 159 of the Constitution and the overriding objective under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 19 of the ELC Act and Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Mutunga Rules. Time spent on the application should have been spent on the Petition.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Interlocutory applications must further the overriding objective of just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of disputes; applications that merely delay the hearing of a main petition should be disallowed
  • Courts retain inherent power under Rule 3(8) of the Mutunga Rules to make such orders as the ends of justice demand and to prevent abuse of court process

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 2nd Respondent's application dated 15th April 2024 is disallowed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs
  3. 3.Parties to be given a date to highlight their written submissions on the main Petition without further ado
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159 of the Constitution; Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Petitioners v 2nd and 3rd Respondents (Application to Set Aside Status Quo Orders)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6687/eng@2024-09-26

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