Frankline Karitu Njiru & 6 others v Kenya Urban Roads Authority & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
P. M. Njoroge
Judgment Date
October 28, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3

Case Brief: Frankline Karitu Njiru & 6 others v Kenya Urban Roads Authority & 2 others [2020] eKLR


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Frankline Karitu Njiru & Others v. Kenya Urban Roads Authority & Others
- Case Number: Chuka ELC Miscellaneous Civil Application Case No. 05 of 2020
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Date Delivered: 28th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): P. M. Njoroge
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented to the court include:
1. Whether the applicants were entitled to withdraw their suit under Order 25 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
2. Whether the respondents were entitled to costs despite not opposing the application prior to the withdrawal.

3. Facts of the Case:
The applicants, comprising seven individuals, filed a suit against the Kenya Urban Roads Authority and other governmental entities. The case arose from the demolition and destruction of the applicants' properties (plots M26B, M26A2, M25, M19, M20B, M23, and M27B) by the 1st respondent, despite the existence of a pending application for an interim injunction to prevent such actions. The applicants sought to withdraw their suit, arguing that the actions of the respondents rendered their claims nugatory.

4. Procedural History:
The applicants initially filed Chief Magistrates ELC Case No. 13 of 2020 seeking an injunction against the demolition of their properties. Due to jurisdictional questions raised by the respondents, the applicants sought the opinion of the Environment and Land Court, leading to the filing of ELC Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2020. The application was set for hearing on 30th March 2020 but was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On 19th May 2020, the applicants filed a notice to withdraw both the miscellaneous application and the Chief Magistrates case, citing the demolition of their properties as the reason for withdrawal.

5. Analysis:
Rules:
The court considered Order 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which outlines the procedures for withdrawing suits. Specifically, Order 25 Rule 1 allows a plaintiff to withdraw a suit before it is set down for hearing, while Rule 2 requires a formal application for withdrawal if the suit has already been set down.

Case Law:
The respondents contended that the applicants should have followed Order 25 Rule 2, as the application had been set down for hearing. They argued that the withdrawal notice was improperly before the court since it was not served on all parties as required. The respondents also cited the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court as a significant point, arguing that the applicants should have withdrawn the case and filed a new one in the appropriate court.

Application:
The court found that the respondents had not opposed the application for an injunction prior to the withdrawal, which indicated a lack of interest in defending the case. The court noted that the applicants' properties were demolished despite the ongoing legal proceedings, thereby rendering the application for an injunction moot. The court ultimately ruled that the withdrawal was justified and allowed it, emphasizing that the procedural missteps cited by the respondents did not undermine the applicants' intentions to seek justice.

6. Conclusion:
The court allowed the notice of withdrawal filed by the applicants on 19th May 2020, determining that the application had been rendered useless due to the respondents' actions. The court further ruled that no costs would be awarded to the respondents, recognizing that they had not opposed the application and that the circumstances leading to the withdrawal were not the fault of the applicants.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case. The ruling was unanimous in its conclusion to allow the withdrawal of the suit.

8. Summary:
The Environment and Land Court at Chuka ruled in favor of the applicants, allowing their withdrawal of the civil application due to the demolition of their properties by the respondents. The decision underscores the importance of judicial process integrity and the need to protect litigants' rights, particularly when their claims have been rendered moot by the actions of opposing parties. The case highlights issues of jurisdiction and procedural compliance in civil litigation, emphasizing that the court must prioritize substantive justice over technicalities.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Frankline-Karitu-Njiru--6-others-v-Kenya-Urban-Roads-Authority--2-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2674_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries