That therefore, the preliminary objection be upheld.ħ. Limited –vs- West End Distributors (1969) EA 626. Counsel asserted that the issues raised in the preliminary objection meet threshold set out in Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Reliance thereof was made on the Supreme Court of Kenya decision in Raila Odinga and 3 others –vs- Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and 3 others(2013)eKLR.Ħ. That the said affidavit should be struck off the record. Counsel further submitted that the applicant’s counsel filed supplementary affidavit contrary to Order 51 Rule 14 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21 Laws of Kenya). 36 of 1995, Hangzhon Agrochemicals Industries Ltd v Panda Flowers Ltd (2012)eKLR, and Article 160 (1) and (5) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, to fortify that specific argument.ĥ. He cited, inter alia, David Kabungu v Zikarenga and 4 others Kampala HCCS No.
#ACHIENG REGGY TRIAL#
Counsel submitted that transfer of a suit under Section 18(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) from one court to another has several basic considerations including balance of convenience, expense questions, interest of justice and orders of recusal before the trial magistrate had been sought.
That there was no compelling reason advanced to adjourn the hearing of the matter before the trial court.Ĥ. Learned counsel for the respondent made reference to the grounds of the preliminary objection and the background of the matter including denial of an adjournment of the matter by the Honourable trial court as date for hearing was fixed by consent of the parties. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant filed submissions dated 17 th June 2020 while learned counsel for the 1 st plaintiff respondent filed submissions dated 21 st May 2020.ģ. On 12 th May 2020, it was ordered and directed that the preliminary objection be argued by written submissions. That this Honourable court has no jurisdiction to determine this application as the same is a preserve of the trial court.Ģ. That further, the 1 st defendant/applicant has sneaked in further documents i.e supplementary affidavit dated 4 th May 2020, in the court record without seeking leave of court as required by law. In which orders Migori CM ELC 59 of 2018 and Migori CM ELC 60 of 2018 were consolidated, and, the court declined to adjourn the matter respectively. Richard Odenyo and Moses Obiero on 28 th November 2018 and 10 th March 2020 respectively. That the defendant/applicant has not preferred any appeal against the orders made by the Honourable Mr. He contends that the 1 st defendant’s (applicant’s) Notice of Motion dated 19 th March 2020 and filed in court on even date is hopelessly misconceived, frivolous, totally devoid of merit and mala fides on the grounds that. The present ruling is in respect of a preliminary objection dated 8 th May 2020 and filed in court on 11 th May 2020 by M/S Abisai and Company Advocates, counsel for the 1 st plaintiff, Lawrence Onduso Nyakwama (the respondent herein). NIFRIDA ADEYA IMINZA (Suing for and on behalf of the estate ofĬALEB ADEYA MAGOMERE).2 ND PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENTġ. LAWRENCE ONDUSO NYAKWAMA.1 ST PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT OPIYO REGGY OPERE.1 ST APPLICANT/DEFENDANT IN THE ENVORNMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA AT MIGORI Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court.
Ms Okota, learned counsel for the respondent. Roch Odhiambo, learned counsel for the applicant. Opiyo Reggy Opere v Lawrence Onduso Nyakwama & another eKLR Opiyo Reggy Opere v Lawrence Onduso Nyakwama & Nifrida Adeya Iminza
0 kommentar(er)
