Wafula v Walela & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 106 of 2010) [2026] KEELC 3796 (KLR) (17 June 2026) (Ruling)

Wafula v Walela & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 106 of 2010) [2026] KEELC 3796 (KLR) (17 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3796 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Bungoma Environment and Land Case 106 of 2010 AK Bor, J June 17, 2026 (FORMERLY KAKAMEGA ELC NO. 14 OF 2019) (ORIGINALLY BUNGOMA HCCC NO. 106 OF 2010) Between Benjamin Barasa Wafula Plaintiff and Alex Mwangala Walela 1st Defendant Joseph Makhakha Evan 2nd Defendant Wyclife Wanyonyi Elam 3rd Defendant Joel Khaemba Watibini 4th Defendant Dickson Juma Walela 5th Defendant Jane Nafula Walubengo 6th Defendant Harriet Nabwile Wawire 7th Defendant Ruling 1.The Plaintiff filed the application dated 3/2/2026, seeking a myriad of prayers that are difficult to comprehend. The application is indicated to be brought under Order 22 Rules 84 and 86 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 43 Rules 1,2,3, Order 40 Rule 7 and Order 37 Rule 1. It is also indicated brought pursuant to the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) regulations of 2020 and Sections 54 and 14 of the 5th Schedule of the Law of Succession Act. 2.The orders sought by the Plaintiff mostly revolve around allegations against the previous Judge. He sought an order for this court to expunge ELC Case No. 106 of 2010 and for the court to declare that case to be defunct because the trial Judge Justice Enock Cherono committed offences relating to judicial proceedings and offences. Another prayer is for the review of what the Plaintiff terms as a “purported and scandalous judgment delivered on 8/5/2025 and the ruling delivered on 2/10/2025” due to what he termed as omissions relating to certain pleadings. The Plaintiff also sought stay of execution of the decree directing the Deputy Registrar to transfer the land known as Ndivisi/Muuchi/ 2366 pending hearing of his application because he had sued the Deputy Registrar of this court vide ELC Constitutional Petition No. E006 of 2025 for denying him the opportunity to litigate against corruption through Bungoma CMCC No. 57 of 2010. He also sought stay of execution of the bill of cost. 3.The other prayer is for consolidation of this case with ELC Constitutional Petition No. E005 of 2025 because the respondent in that matter “fabricated felonies or misdemeanor on perjury for subordination of perjury by deceiving the Defendants to make contradictory statements for procuring deed of the suit land by false pretense”. Another prayer is to the effect that the trial Judge committed offences related to the judicial proceedings when he omitted to hear the Plaintiff’s case and this court is being urged to direct the Defendants to settle their “vendees” from their ancestral land no. Ndivisi/Khalumuli/343. There are other allegations in the application touching on felonies, misdemeanor and perjury made against the learned Judge and Mr. Saul Wasilwa Advocate. 4.The last prayer in the application seeks to have this court uphold the verdicts in Bungoma High Court Succession Cause No. 129 of 2006, Bungoma ELC case No. 285 of 213 and Webuye Magistrates Court Civil Case No. 132 of 2019 as the judgement of this court and a prayer that the Defendants obtained title deeds over the Plaintiff’s land Ndivisi/ Muuchi/2366 with the support of the learned Judge, Mr. Wasilwa advocate and a staff of the Judiciary. 5.The Plaintiff set out numerous grounds and made allegations that the trial Judge committed offences relating to judicial proceedings and threatened him. He faulted the Judge for omitting to consider certain documents and alleged that the Judge interfered with and deceived witnesses by committing offences in the judicial proceedings. 6.The Plaintiff swore the supporting affidavit in which he regurgitated some of the allegations he made against the Judge on the face of the application. 7.The Defendants filed grounds of opposition and urged that the Plaintiff was seeking to upset a decision of a superior court in which he fully participated without any grounds for doing so. They argued that Order 22 Rules 84 and 86 and Order 43 as well as Orders 40 Rule 7 and Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Rules were not applicable to the Plaintiff’s application. They contended that the Plaintiff had failed to set out any legal justification for seeking the review of the judgment under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. They pointed out that the Plaintiff was seeking consolidation of a suit which had already been concluded with another suit. Additionally, that prayer no. 7 was inviting this court to investigate the conduct of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, which was against all known edicts of professional decorum. The other point taken up was that several prayers sought were scandalous and malicious statements concerning the conduct of a judge yet a person dissatisfied with a decision of the court ought to file an application for review or lodge an appeal. 8.The issue for consideration is whether this court should grant the orders sought in the application dated 3/2/2026. Most of the prayers sought by the Plaintiff touch on the conduct of the previous Judge and fall outside the jurisdiction of this court. Instead of making allegations against the Judge in the fashion and manner in which the Plaintiff filed the present application, the proper recourse for the Plaintiff was to either seek review or lodge an appeal against the decisions of the previous Judge if he was dissatisfied with the decision of the court. This court does not enforce the judicial service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations 2020 as that falls within the domain of the Judicial Service Commission. 9.The prayers sought by the Plaintiff do not lie. The court declines to grant the orders sought in the application dated 3/2/2026. The court makes no orders as to costs. DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT BUNGOMA THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.K. BORJUDGEIn the presence of: -Ms. E. Nekesa holding brief for Mr. S. Wasilwa for the DefendantsCourt Assistants- Bett & MetrineNo appearance for the Plaintiff