NAIVASHA QUARRY PROJECT LIMITED V KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE [2013] KEHC 4474 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

High Court at Nakuru

Environmental & Land Case 23 of 2012 [if gte mso 9]><xml>

800x600

</xml><![endif]

NAIVASHA QUARRY PROJECT LIMITED........….PLAINATIFF

VERSUS

KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE………………….DEFENDANT

RULING

This is an application by Notice of Motion dated 12th November 2012. The applicant seeks exparte orders that there be a stay of further proceedings pending hearing and determination of the application: That this suit be transferred to the Environment and Land Court, Nairobi for hearing and final determination.

The application is premised on the grounds that   the plaintiff’s members in the year 2001, threatened the Defendant’s counsel and employees with violence and or physical injury. Again on 28th June 2012, the plaintiffs members acted very aggressively against the Defendants officers: That in the interests of safety of the defendants counsel, and its officers and witnesses that this suit be transferred to the Environment and Land Court, Nairobi for hearing and final disposal.

In theaffidavit sworn by Patrick Lutta, counsel for the   Defendant, he depones that he   represents the Defendant  in several matters, some in Naivasha. In 2001, after attending the hearing of SRMCC 290 of 2000 and upon trying to effect service to the plaintiffs in their offices within Naivasha  town, in the company of police escort and Mr Muriuki a security officer of the Defendant, the plaintiffs members threatened to lynch and set their vehicle ablaze but were restrained by the police officers who had accompanied them. They warned the deponent not to interfere with issues relating to the suit property. That   in or about 28th June 2012, the plaintiff members again became very aggressive towards the Defendants officers until the police had to be called in. That the deponent fears for his safety by travelling  from Nairobi to Nakuru and back to attend to this matter.

I have read the pleadings carefully and also consulted widely. This is a matter that is within the terminal jurisdiction of the Nakuru Environment                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      and Land Court. The issues   raised by the counsel for the defendant on his security and that of the Defendants are very serious officers and  should be reported and dealt with by the police immediately.

It would be premature at this stage to determine whether the suit should be heard and determined in Nakuru or Nairobi. The plaintiff/Respondent needs to be brought on board first.

I order as follows:-

1. The application is certified urgent

2. The application to be served upon the plaintiff/Respondent for interpartes  hearing on 21st May 2013

3. Costs to be in the cause

Dated signed and delivered this 15th day of March 2013.

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE

Present

Mr Maruti for the applicants

Stephen Mwangi   Court Clerk

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE

[if gte mso 9]><xml>

Normal 0

false false false

EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]