Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

keelc-2025-18723

Njiru v Kanga & another (Land Case (Originating Summons) E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 18723 (KLR) (26 March 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 18723 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA LAND CASE (ORIGINATING SUMMONS) E001 OF 2024 BM EBOSO, J MARCH 26, 2025 BETWEEN DANIEL MUTWIRI NJIRU ..................................................................... PLAINTIFF AND SALLYVAN NJIRU KANGA ........................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT JANIFASIA KAARI MUTEGI ........................................................ 2ND DEFENDANT RULING 1. Parties conrmed their readiness for hearing. The plainti has, however, realized that there are important documents that he omitted from his trial bundle. He prays for an adjournment to enable him obtain the documents and le a supplementary trial bundle. The defence does not object to the plea although it is their wish that the claimant initiated a fresh suit on the platform of a plaint. The claimant is categorical that the originating summons is the proper platform. 2. In the absence of an objection, the court will allow the adjournment and the plea to le a supplementary trial bundle. The bundle is to be eld and served within 30 days. The plainti will pay court attendance fees. There shall be corresponding leave. 3. Hearing on 24/6/2025. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT CHUKA THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. B M EBOSO [MR] JUDGE In the Presence of: Ms. Mbugua for the Plainti https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18723/eng@2025-03-26 1

page 1 of 2

Mr. Mutani for the Defendants Court Assistant – Moses https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18723/eng@2025-03-26 2

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.