Case ID:170224

William Mutuura Kairibia & another v Inspector General of Police & 8 others [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Constitution Petition Case E002 of 2020

Parties:

William Mutuura Kairibia & Felix Gitonga Nthiga Mutuura v Inspector General of Police, Director of Public Prosecutios, Senior Principal Magistrate, Marimanti, County Land Registrar Tharaka Nithi County, County Government of Tharaka Nithi, Director of Surveys, Elijah Muthuri Muriungi & District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer

Date Delivered:

15 Feb 2021

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Environment and Land Court at Chuka

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Peter Muchoki Njoroge

Citation:

William Mutuura Kairibia & another v Inspector General of Police & 8 others [2021] eKLR

Advocates:

M/s Macheru for the petitioners

Sichanya for the 6th respondent

Atheru for the 8th respondent

Court Division:

Environment and Land

County:

Tharaka Nithi

Advocates:

M/s Macheru for the petitioners

Sichanya for the 6th respondent

Atheru for the 8th respondent

Extract:

0

History Advocates:

One party or some parties represented

Case Outcome:

Directions be taken on 10.3.2021

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 ELCCONSTITUTION PETITION CASE NO. E002 OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF MARIMANTI MAGISTRATES COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. 540 OF 2020

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 2(1), 3(1), 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 48, 50, 157, 165(6) AND 245 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 50(2) ( C) AND 40 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND ADJUDICATION ACT, CAP 284 LAWS OF KENYA

BETWEEN

WILLIAM MUTUURA KAIRIBIA..........................................1

ST

PETITIONER

FELIX GITONGA NTHIGA MUTUURA...............................2

ND

PETITIONER

VERSUS

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE..................................1

ST

RESPONDENT

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIOS..........................2

ND

RESPONDENT

SENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE, MARIMANTI......3

RD

RESPONDENT

THE COUNTY LAND REGISTRAR THARAKA NITHI

COUNTY..................................................................................4

TH

RESPONDENT

THE COUNTY SURVEYOR THARAKA NITHI

COUNTY..................................................................................5

TH

RESPONDENT

COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF THARAKA NITHI...........6

TH

RESPONDENT

THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEYS..........................................7

TH

RESPONDENT

ELIJAH MUTHURI MURIUNGI.........................................8

TH

RESPONDENT

DISTRICT LAND ADJUDICATION AND SETTLEMENT

OFFICER.................................................................................9

TH

RESPONDENT

RULING

1. Mr. Atheru, the 8

th

respondents’ advocate orally asked the court to vacate interim orders issued by this court. For this assertion, he relied on the failure by the petitioners not to serve their submissions concerning his Preliminary Objection dated

15

th

December, 2020

within the time stipulated by the court.

2. Advocate Atheru told the court that those interim orders were issued per incurium because the petitioners had failed to disclose to the court that the

8

th

respondent

had been in possession of the suit property following a decision of this court in

Chuka ELC No. 8 of 2018

. Mr. Atheru told the court that the refusal to serve apposite papers upon the

8

th

respondent

was to allow the petitioners to continue enjoying the interim orders.

3. The petitioners excuse for not serving the apposite papers within the stipulated time was judicially and veritably risible. Their advocate told the court that when they went to serve the said papers, they were told that the

8

th

respondent’s advocate

had gone to court. Surely, there is no requirement that an advocate be served personally. They should have served his employees and left the papers in his office. I do not accept the petitioners’ explanation.

4. I am tempted to agree with the

8

th

respondent’s

advocate that the petitioners want to delay the hearing of the Preliminary Objection as they continue to enjoy the extant interim orders.

5. In the circumstances, I issue the following orders:

a) Interim orders issued on

30.11.2020

and extended on

16.12.2020

and further extended on

1.2.2021

are hereby vacated.

b)

All parties are to serve the other parties with all the apposite documents

within 7 days of today.

c) By consent of counsels present

, directions

will be taken on

10.3.2021.

Delivered in open Court at Chuka this 15

th

day of February, 2021

in the presence of:

CA: Ndegwa

M/s Macheru for the petitioners

Sichanya for the 6

th

respondent

Atheru for the 8

th

respondent

HON. JUSTICE (Dr.) P. M. NJOROGE,

ELC JUDGE.