PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED……………...……….PLAINTIFF VERSUS REBECCA NGONYO ……..………..………………………………1st DEFENDANT SAMUEL KAMAU MACHARIA……..…………………………......2ND DEFENDANT DIRECTIONS The interested party filed a motion dated 28th March, 2012 when a ruling on another application dated 6th February, 2012 was pending delivery on 30th April, 2012. The motion of 28th March, 2012 sought that the ruling in question be delayed; that the orders made by consent on 18th March, 2012 be set aside in so far as it declared that the application of joinder dated 16th January, 2012 was spend and; that the application dated 16th January, 2012 be fixed for hearing. Upon realizing that the interested party was already joined in these proceedings by consent, learned counsel for the interested party conceded that the application will not serve any meaningful purpose. He only took issue with the consent given by the interested party’s erstwhile advocate regarding the deposit of the rent, arguing that those were not the interested party’s instructions. I have perused the pleadings and it is apparent that the interested party has through his erstwhile advocate filed both a notice of preliminary objection and a document headed “Supporting Affidavit” (which ought to be replying affidavit) in response to the application of 6th February, 2012. Both the notice of preliminary objection and the affidavit are part of the record and will be considered in the ruling of the application dated 6th February, 2012. It is now directed: i) that the ruling shall be delivered on 29th June, 2012; ii) that in terms of the consent orders of 6th March, 2012 the relevant files be forwarded to this court for consolidation with within 14 days from the date hereof. Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 11th day of May, 2012. W. OUKO JUDGE
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.