Case ID:167358

Phares Munyambu Rimberia & another v Seventh Day Adventist Church [2020] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2020

Parties:

Phares Munyambu Rimberia & Charles Kithine Rimberia v Seventh Day Adventist Church

Date Delivered:

23 Nov 2020

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Environment and Land Court at Chuka

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Peter Muchoki Njoroge

Citation:

Phares Munyambu Rimberia & another v Seventh Day Adventist Church [2020] eKLR

Advocates:

Miss Kijaru h/b for the Respondent.

Mary Muthoni w/o Charles Kithinji, 2nd Intended Appellant.

Court Division:

Environment and Land

County:

Tharaka Nithi

Advocates:

Miss Kijaru h/b for the Respondent.

Mary Muthoni w/o Charles Kithinji, 2nd Intended Appellant.

History Advocates:

Both Parties Represented

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT

AT CHUKA

CHUKA ELC APPEAL CASE NO. E001 OF 2020

MARIMANTI PM’S ELC.26 OF 2017

PHARES MUNYAMBU RIMBERIA.....................................1

ST

APPELLANT/APPLICANT

CHARLES KITHINE RIMBERIA.........................................2

ND

APPELLANT/APPLICANT

VERSUS

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH.........................................................RESPONDENT

RULING

1. In this matter, the intended appellants were on 14

th

October, 2020 directed to respond to the respondent’s replying affidavit within 7 days of that date and to also file and exchange their written submissions concerning the application dated 15/9/2020 within the same time. The intended appellants did not do as directed by the court.

2. On 11

th

November, 2020, Mary Muthoni the wife of the 2

nd

intended Appellant told the court that he was indisposed. She told the court that her husband supported the respondent and was not consulted when the suit was filed.

3. The intended Appellants were on 11/11/2020 directed to file and exchange a record of appeal within 7 days.

4. On 23/11/2020, Advocate Nyenyire, representing the respondent told the court that contrary to court orders, the intended Appellant had not filed a record of Appeal. He urged the court to dismiss the intended Appeal on account of disobedience of court orders.

5. Once again, Mary Muthoni told the court that her husband was sick. She reiterated that he did not support the intended appeal.

6. I opine that the disobedience of court orders would be a sufficient reason for dismissal of this appeal. However, I will dispose of it for another reason.

7. In terms of the provision of Section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act, I have perused the intended Appeal and I consider that there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the decree or part of a decree or any order appealed against and, I therefore, summarily reject this appeal.

8. For avoidance of doubt, this Intended Appeal is summarily rejected.

Delivered in open Court at Chuka this

23

rd

day of November, 2020

in the presence of:

CA: Ndegwa

Miss Kijaru h/b for the Respondent.

Mary Muthoni w/o Charles Kithinji, 2

nd

Intended Appellant.

P. M. NJOROGE

JUDGE