Petitioners v 2nd and 3rd Respondents (Application to Set Aside Status Quo Orders)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the 2nd Respondent's application dated 15th April 2024 seeking to set aside the orders issued on 26th January 2024 is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the application to set aside the status quo orders was merited
The application was disallowed because it did not further the overriding objective and had the effect of unduly delaying the expedited hearing of the main Petition
The court noted that the status quo order of 26th January 2024 had been issued by consent and understanding of the parties to facilitate expedited hearing of the Petition in lieu of the Petitioners' interim conservatory application. The 2nd Respondent's belated application to set it aside ran counter to Article 159 of the Constitution and the overriding objective under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 19 of the ELC Act and Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Mutunga Rules. Time spent on the application should have been spent on the Petition.
Legal principles established
#- Interlocutory applications must further the overriding objective of just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of disputes; applications that merely delay the hearing of a main petition should be disallowed
- Courts retain inherent power under Rule 3(8) of the Mutunga Rules to make such orders as the ends of justice demand and to prevent abuse of court process
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd Respondent's application dated 15th April 2024 is disallowed
- 2.No orders as to costs
- 3.Parties to be given a date to highlight their written submissions on the main Petition without further ado
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159 of the Constitution; Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013
Relief refused
#Setting aside the status quo orders issued on 26th January 2024
The application did not further the overriding objective but had the effect of unduly delaying the hearing of the main Petition
Costs
No orders as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In any event, the order of maintenance of status quo, pending the hearing and determination of the Petition was granted by the court in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction and was intended to give way to the hearing of the Petition rather than spending time on the interim application filed by the Petitioners.
Consequently, I disallow the 2nd Respondent's application dated April 15, 2024 but with no orders as to costs. I will grant the parties a date to highlight their written submissions in regard to the main Petition without further ado.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Petitioners v 2nd and 3rd Respondents (Application to Set Aside Status Quo Orders)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6687/eng@2024-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.