https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3176

Onyango v Owino (Environment and Land Appeal E010 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3176 (KLR) (26 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3176 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Machakos Environment and Land Appeal E010 of 2025 AY Koross, J May 26, 2026 Between Donald Odhiambo Onyango Appellant and Evelyne Auma Owino Respondent (Appeal from ruling of Hon. B. A. Ojoo CM, delivered on 22/04/2024 in Mavoko CM’s Court ELC Civil Case No. 69 of 2019 Donald Odhiambo Onyango v Evelyne Owino)) Ruling 1.This case had been reserved for judgment today, but, unfortunately, this court is constrained to deliver a ruling for reasons of several inadequacies that have been noted in the entire record, as set out below. 2.Firstly, contrary to the provisions of Order 42 Rule 13 (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”), the entire record of appeal, including the supplementary record of appeal, is incomplete. In particular, it does not contain the parties' entire pleadings before the lower court, including the plaint, lists, and bundle of documents. The decisions emanating therefrom, including the judgment and/or decree, have not been tendered. Moreover, contrary to this Rule, the order granting him leave to appeal out of time has not been presented to this court. 3.Secondly, contrary to the provision of Order 42 Rule 1 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that a memorandum of appeal set out concisely, under distinct heads, the grounds of objection to the decree or order appealed against, without any argument or narrative, and that such grounds be numbered consecutively, the memorandum of appeal fails in this regard, as it has 3 headings stated thus; “Grounds of appeal pursuant to the appellant`s (plaintiff) notice of motion application dated 27th June 2022”; “grounds of appeal pursuant to the respondent's (defendant's) notice of motion application dated 11th October 2023” and “grounds of appeal pursuant to the respondent's (defendant's) amended notice of motion application dated 19th Остовеr 2023”, which are strange in law. 4.From the memorandum of appeal, it is apparent that the appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the learned trial magistrate dated 22 April 2024. Therefore, and guided by the law, it was incumbent upon him to identify the core grounds of his grievance in that decision without narrating evidence, and thereafter to outline these grounds of appeal in a concise manner, without raising new grounds on appeal or narrating evidence. 5.Lastly, apart from the memorandum of appeal, all his filings have been made in hard copy, which contravenes the Practice Directions on Electronic Case Management, under which Direction no. 2(2) requires all cases, including appeals, to be filed electronically unless leave of the court is granted, as envisaged by Direction 4. In the instant case, no such leave was ever sought by his counsel, and, from the record, there is no basis whatsoever for not filing electronically. 6.As this court concludes, it is necessary to mention that the appellant’s submissions, which were not filed electronically, exceeded the page limit, contrary to the court's direction. 7.Thus, in the circumstances and for the above stated reasons, this court hereby directs as follows: -a.The appellant does file an amended memorandum of appeal.b.The appellant’s records of appeal are hereby expunged from the record.c.The appellant does file a comprehensive record of appeal.d.The appellant’s written submissions are hereby expunged from the record.e.The appellant does file written submissions in compliance with previous directions.f.All the filings mentioned in orders (a), (c) and (e) above must be made electronically filed and served within 14 days of the date of delivery of this ruling.g.Liberty applies to the respondent to file written submissions equally capped within 14 days of service by the appellant.h.In default of compliance by the appellant with the orders of this court, the appeal shall automatically stand dismissed without further reference to the court.It is so ordered. DELIVERED AND DATED AT MACHAKOS THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.HON. A. Y. KOROSSJUDGE26.05.2026Ruling delivered virtually through Microsoft Teams Video Conferencing PlatformIn the presence of;Ms. Kanja Court Assistant.Miss Tuwei for Mr. Kirimi for 2nd respondent.Mr. Muriithi for Mr. Kinaro for applicant.