https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2642
The application for substituted service failed because the Plaintiff did not adequately demonstrate inability to trace the Defendant or justify departure from the prior service order; the Court found service should proceed in accordance with the order requiring service through the area chief.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 2642 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ambrose Mwangi Kimani; Defendant: Teklar Nyambura Karanja (Sued as legal representative of the Estate of Maina Philip Karanja Mwangi - Deceased)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Planning Originating Summons E001 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Planning Originating Summons / Ruling on Application for Substituted Service
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- ["MN Gicheru"]
- Legal Topics
- Substituted Service, Service of Process, Originating Summons, Proof of Residence of Defendant, Compliance With Court Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ambrose Mwangi Kimani
Plaintiff
Teklar Nyambura Karanja (Sued as legal representative of the Estate of Maina Philip Karanja Mwangi - Deceased)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Planning Originating Summons / Ruling on Application for Substituted Service
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff had made out a basis for substituted service of the originating summons.
- 2 Whether the existing court order directing service through the area chief should be complied with.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for substituted service failed because the Plaintiff did not adequately demonstrate inability to trace the Defendant or justify departure from the prior service order; the Court found service should proceed in accordance with the order requiring service through the area chief.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The notice of application dated 18-3-2025 was found not merited.
- The order dated 18-11-2025 must be complied with.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kimani v Karanja (Sued as legal representative of the Estate of Maina Philip Karanja Mwangi - Deceased) (Environment and Planning Originating Summons E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2642 (KLR) (5 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2642 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Muranga Environment and Planning Originating Summons E001 of 2025 MN Gicheru, J May 5, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 7, 17 AND 38 OF LIMITATION OF ACTION ACT ORDER 37 RULES 7 AND 19 CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES SECTION 3A OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES SECTION 3A OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT AND ALL THE OTHER ENABLING PROVISION OF THE LAW. Between Ambrose Mwangi Kimani Plaintiff and Teklar Nyambura Karanja (Sued as legal representative of the Estate of Maina Philip Karanja Mwangi - Deceased) Defendant Ruling 1.This ruling is on the notice of application dated 28-3-2025. The application which is by the Plaintiff is brought under Order 5 rule 17(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. It seeks one main prayer.1.That the Court to order that the originating summons herein to be served upon the Respondent, Teklar Nyambura Karanja, through substituted service.2.That the costs of the application be provided for. 2.The motion is based on three (3) grounds and is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Plaintiff. The gist of the application is as follows. Firstly, the residence of the Defendant is not known. The Defendant is also not known to the Plaintiff. There is therefore no place where the Defendant can be served. Secondly, it is not easy to trace the Defendant’s residence. The only way of effecting service is through an advertisement in the daily newspaper and registered post. 3.On 18-11-2025, the Court directed that the Defendant be served through the chief of the area where the land is situated. When the case came up for mention on 10-2-2026, the Plaintiff’s counsel said that there was information that the Defendant had relocated to Kabati area. 4.Since the Plaintiff seeks to be declared the owner of land that is registered in the name of the deceased, the service must be certain and physical. It is not clear to me how the Plaintiff came to know that Teklar Nyambura Karanja is the legal representative of the registered owner of the suit land. It is not in the two affidavits on record or their annexures. It is also not clear why the order dated 10-2-2026 was not complied with. It is highly unlikely that the registered owner of the suit land is unknown to all the people in locality where the land is situated. It is for this reason that I find that his application dated 18-3-2025 is not merited. I direct that the order dated 18-11-2025 be complied with. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT MURANG’A THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.M.N. GICHERU JUDGE.Delivered online in the presence of; -Court Assistants – Jackline and AntonyMr Muturi Njoroge for the Plaintiff