Case ID:185402

Jeremiah M’njogu M’torugoji v County Government of Meru & 2 others; Evangeline T. Arithi(Interested Party) [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Judicial Review 9 of 2015

Parties:

Jeremiah M’njogu M’torugoji v County Government of Meru, Attorney General & Charles Kaburu Kabarua;Evangeline T. Arithi (Interested Party)

Date Delivered:

10 Nov 2021

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Environment and Land Court at Meru

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Christopher Kyania Nzili

Citation:

Jeremiah M’njogu M’torugoji v County Government of Meru & 2 others; Evangeline T. Arithi(Interested Party) [2021] eKLR

Advocates:

Kieti for the 3rd respondent

Court Division:

Environment and Land

Advocates:

Kieti for the 3rd respondent

History Advocates:

One party or some parties represented

Case Outcome:

Notice of Motion dismissed with costs

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 MERU

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 9 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JEREMIAH M’NJOGU M’TORUGOJI

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26 LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF MERU MINICIPALITY BLCOK 11/792 & BLOCK 11/793

JEREMIAH M’NJOGU M’TORUGOJI........................APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MERU.......1

ST

RESPONDENT

THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ..................2

ND

RESPONDENT

CHARLES KABURU KABARUA .......................3

RD

RESPONDENT

EVANGELINE T. ARITHI ............................. INTERESTED PARTY

RULING

1. The application dated

19.3.2020

brought under

Order 42 rule 6

seeks the court to first substantiate its judgment delivered on

19.2.2020

and secondly, review costs awarded to the respondents.

2. It is supported by grounds on the face of it and a supporting affidavits sworn by

Jeremiah M’Njogu M’Norugoji

sworn on

19.3.2020

and

11.8.2020

respectively. Through a judgment delivered on

7.2.2020

, this court dismissed the applicant’s notice of motion dated 22.6.2015 with costs.

3. Order 42 rule

6

provides that for a court to grant stay of execution pending appeal it has to be satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay.

4. The applicant herein has not indicated if he has preferred any appeal to the Court of Appeal regarding the aforesaid judgment. He has not stated if there is an impending execution against him and that he is likely to suffer substantial loss unless a stay is granted.

5. The prayers sought are not for stay of execution pending appeal but for the court to substantiate its judgment and review the order for costs. The judgment was self-explanatory. Under the Black

Laws Dictionary 11

th

edition

the word substantiate means

“ to establish the existence or truth of fact by competent evidence

.” There can be no doubt the judgment as written is as per

Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules

. It is self-explanatory and does not need any further explanation. The court is therefore

functus officio

and cannot offer a simpler version of its decision.

6. Secondly regarding review of costs, Under

Section 27 & 28 of the Civil Procedure Act

costs follow the event. It is the discretion of the court upon delivery of a judgment to determine whether or not to award costs to any party.

Party of Independent Candidates of Kenya –vs- Mutula Kilonzo & 2 [2013] eKLR 2 Others,

it was held a trial court has judicial discretion to award costs to a successful party unless there are good grounds or cause to withhold costs.

7. There is no material before court to disturb the orders granted. I have not seen any bill of costs for assessment by the respondents in this matter due for taxation and or already taxed and which there is an impending execution.

8. For the above reasons I find the notice of motion dated 19.3.2020 not only premature but lacking merits. The same is dismissed with costs.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT MERU THIS 10

TH

DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

In presence of:

Kieti For 3

rd

Respondent

Nyenyire absent

Court Clerk: Kananu

HON. C.K. NZILI

ELC JUDGE