Republic v Chairman Kapsaret Land Disputes Tribunal & 5 others Ex-Parte Joseph Kiruiyot Sitienei & 4 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
S. M. Kibunja
Judgment Date
October 21, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Republic v Chairman Kapsaret Land Disputes Tribunal & 5 others Ex-Parte Joseph Kiruiyot Sitienei & 4 others [2020] eKLR. Gain insights into the judgment and its implications on land dispute resolution in Kenya.

Case Brief: Republic v Chairman Kapsaret Land Disputes Tribunal & 5 others Ex-Parte Joseph Kiruiyot Sitienei & 4 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Republic v. The Chairman Kapsaret Land Disputes Tribunal & Others
- Case Number: E & L Misc. Application No. 9 of 2019
- Court: Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- Date Delivered: 21st October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): S. M. Kibunja
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve the following legal issues:
- Whether the Ex-parte Applicants have made a reasonable case for the extension of time to file the substantive motion.
- Whether granting the extension of time will cause any prejudice to the Respondents that cannot be compensated with an award of costs.
- Who should bear the costs of the application?

3. Facts of the Case:
The Ex-parte Applicants, who are the registered owners of specific land parcels, sought an extension of time to file a substantive motion after their previous suit was dismissed. They argued that their former advocate mistakenly filed a different suit instead of the intended motion, leading to a delay. The Respondents, including the Chairman of the Kapsaret Land Disputes Tribunal, opposed the application, claiming it was incompetent and barred by res judicata due to the previous ruling in Eldoret ELC No. 141"A" of 2012.

4. Procedural History:
The Ex-parte Applicants filed a Notice of Motion on 1st April 2019, requesting an extension of the 21-day period to file their substantive motion, initially granted on 16th September 2003. The 1st Respondent opposed the motion through grounds of opposition filed on 8th August 2019. The court considered written submissions from both parties before reaching a decision.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court evaluated the rules under Order 50 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which stipulates a 21-day limit for filing substantive applications after leave is granted. The court also referenced the principle of res judicata as outlined in Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, which prevents re-litigation of matters already adjudicated.

- Case Law: The court cited the case of Florence Nyaboke Machani v. Mogere Amosi Ombui & 2 Others, emphasizing that a valid judgment remains enforceable unless overturned. The court also referred to the principles established in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, which guide considerations for extending time.

- Application: The court found that the Ex-parte Applicants failed to file the substantive application within the required timeframe and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay of over fifteen years. The court concluded that the filing of the new suit was not an error but rather a choice made by the Ex-parte Applicants. Consequently, the court determined that granting an extension would prejudice the Respondents, as the matter had already been adjudicated.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Motion dated 1st April 2019, ruling that the Ex-parte Applicants did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for an extension of time. The decision underscored the importance of timely legal action and the consequences of abandoning judicial processes.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The Environment and Land Court of Kenya dismissed the Ex-parte Applicants' motion for an extension of time to file a substantive motion, emphasizing the significance of adhering to procedural timelines and the principle of res judicata. This case highlights the necessity for litigants to remain vigilant in pursuing their legal rights and the potential consequences of inaction in the judicial process.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Republic-v-Chairman-Kapsaret-Land-Disputes-Tribunal--5-others-Ex-Parte-Joseph-Kiruiyot-Sitienei--4-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2221_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries