Mohamud Iltarakwa Kochale & 5 others v Lake Turkana Wind Power Ltd & 4 others; Aaron Iltele Lesianntam & 4 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
P.M. Njoroge, J.G. Kemei, Y.M. Angima, J.
Judgment Date
October 05, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Mohamud Iltarakwa Kochale & others v Lake Turkana Wind Power Ltd, highlighting key legal insights and implications from the 2020 eKLR decision.


Case Brief: Mohamud Iltarakwa Kochale & 5 others v Lake Turkana Wind Power Ltd & 4 others; Aaron Iltele Lesianntam & 4 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Mohamud Iltarakwa Kochale & Others v. Lake Turkana Wind Power Ltd & Others
- Case Number: Meru ELC Case No. 163 of 2014 (formerly Nairobi ELC No. 1330 of 2014)
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Date Delivered: October 5, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): P.M. Njoroge, J.G. Kemei, Y.M. Angima, J.
- Country: Republic of Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs' supplementary submissions filed on October 2, 2020, should be struck off the record due to being filed out of time and without leave of the court.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiffs, comprising six individuals, filed a case against Lake Turkana Wind Power Ltd and several other defendants, including the Marsabit County Government and the Attorney General. The dispute arose from the defendants' submissions, which the plaintiffs sought to respond to with supplementary submissions. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' submissions were filed late and without the court's permission, potentially prejudicing their ability to respond.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the Environment and Land Court, where the plaintiffs were initially granted 30 days to file their written submissions. The defendants and interested parties were also given a parallel timeframe for their submissions. The defendants filed an application to strike out the plaintiffs' late submissions, arguing that the delay was in contravention of the court's directions. The court then considered the arguments presented by both sides regarding the timing and necessity of the supplementary submissions.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the rules governing submission timelines as outlined in its previous directions. Specifically, it evaluated the plaintiffs' right to reply to the defendants' submissions and the implications of filing deadlines.
- Case Law: The court referenced general principles of procedural fairness and the right to reply in civil proceedings, although specific case law was not detailed in the ruling.
- Application: The court found the plaintiffs' explanation for the late filing plausible, noting that their submissions were a response to the defendants' filings. The court reasoned that allowing the supplementary submissions would not unduly prejudice the defendants, as they were merely exercising their right to reply.

6. Conclusion:
The court overruled the 1st defendant's objection to the plaintiffs' supplementary submissions, deeming them properly on record. This ruling underscored the importance of allowing parties the opportunity to respond to submissions in the interest of justice.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case, as the ruling was unanimous among the judges present.

8. Summary:
The Environment and Land Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing their supplementary submissions to be included in the case record. This decision highlights the court's commitment to procedural fairness and the right of parties to fully present their arguments, thereby ensuring justice in the proceedings. The case serves as a precedent for similar disputes regarding submission timelines and the flexibility courts may exercise in the interest of justice.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Mohamud-Iltarakwa-Kochale--5-others-v-Lake-Turkana-Wind-Power-Ltd--4-others-Aaron-Iltele-Lesianntam--4-others-Interested-Parties-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1591_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries