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

Royford Riungu Kuura & 2 others v M'kuura Riria & 2 others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU CIVIL SUIT NO. 147 OF 2009 ROYFORD RIUNGU KUURA.............1ST PLAINTIFF WASHINGTON KIRIMU KUURA..........2ND PLAINTIFF CHARLES NYAGA KUURA …............3RD PLAINTIFF VERSUS M'KUURA RIRIA ….........................1ST DEFENDANT TURA KARINGURI..........................2ND DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL...................3RD DEFENDANT RULING This application is dated 9th December, 2015 and seeks orders:1. THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to order of the transfer of the consolidated suits filed herein to the Environment and Land Division of the High Court at Embu for hearing and determination. 2. THAT the costs be in the cause. It is buttressed by the Affidavit of Charles Nyaga Kura, the Plaintiff. It has the following grounds:i. The subject matter of the suit is land situated at Chuka. ii. That there is now an Environment and Land Division of the High Court at Embu. iii. That all the parties to the suit come from Chuka. iv. That Embu is near to Chuka than Meru. v. It is expensive for the Plaintiffs and their witnesses to attend hearing at Meru. vi. It is in the interest of justice and fairness that the order sought herein be granted. When the matter came up for directions on 16/02/2016, the parties, by consent, agreed to have the application withdrawn. Their Written Consent is adopted as an order of this Court. The application is marked as settled . No costs are granted in respect of this application.

page 1 of 2

It is so ordered. Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 16 day of February, 2016 in the presence of:CC: Daniel/Lilian Marigi h/b Oyugi for the Plaintiffs Mutegi for the Defendants P. M. NJOROGE JUDGE

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.