https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3685
The court declined to strike out the respondents' supplementary submissions despite non-compliance with the original timeline, holding that the applicant could be given time to file rejoinder submissions if necessary. On the new evidence issue, the court reaffirmed its prior direction that no new evidence was to be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 3685 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Jacob Kibiti Kirera; 1st Respondent: Fredrick Kinoti M’mwongo; 2nd Respondent: Stephen Lumbwa; 3rd Respondent: Peter Gituma Maingi; 4th Respondent: Rosemary Kathambi; Interested Party: Stanley Kiogora Arthur
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case Appeal E099 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Supplementary Affidavit and Submissions
- Outcome
- Application partially allowed; respondents spared from striking out, but any new evidence in their supplementary affidavit excluded.
- Judges
- ["BM Eboso"]
- Legal Topics
- Supplementary Affidavit, Written Submissions, New Evidence, Rejoinder Submissions, Case Management Directions
- 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
Jacob Kibiti Kirera
Appellant
Fredrick Kinoti M’mwongo
1st Respondent
Stephen Lumbwa
2nd Respondent
Peter Gituma Maingi
3rd Respondent
Rosemary Kathambi
4th Respondent
Stanley Kiogora Arthur
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Land Case Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Supplementary Affidavit and Submissions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents should be struck out for filing supplementary affidavit and submissions out of the 7-day period.
- 2 Whether the respondents introduced new evidence in breach of the court's directions.
- 3 What directions should govern any rejoinder by the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to strike out the respondents' supplementary submissions despite non-compliance with the original timeline, holding that the applicant could be given time to file rejoinder submissions if necessary. On the new evidence issue, the court reaffirmed its prior direction that no new evidence was to be introduced and held that any such material in the respondents' supplementary affidavit would not form part of the evidence.
Court Disposition
Application partially allowed; respondents spared from striking out, but any new evidence in their supplementary affidavit excluded.
Orders
- Respondents granted 10 days to file and serve the supplementary affidavit and written submissions.
- Applicant to be given reasonable time to file and serve rejoinder submissions if need arises.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kirera v M’mwongo & 4 others (Land Case Appeal E099 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3685 (KLR) (9 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3685 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Meru Land Case Appeal E099 of 2025 BM Eboso, J June 9, 2026 Between Jacob Kibiti Kirera Appellant and Fredrick Kinoti M’mwongo 1st Respondent Stephen Lumbwa 2nd Respondent Peter Gituma Maingi 3rd Respondent Rosemary Kathambi 4th Respondent and Stanley Kiogora Arthur Interested Party Ruling (Ex-tempore) 1.The court has considered the concern of the applicant. It is true that the respondents were given 7 days within which to file and serve their supplementary affidavit and written submissions. Taking into account the nature of the dispute that this court is dealing with [land dispute] the court takes the view that it would be draconian to strike out the submissions of the respondents at this point. The view of the court is that the applicant should be given reasonable time to file and serve rejoinder submissions should need arise. In the circumstances, the respondent is hereby given 10 days to do so. 2.On the issue of introduction of new evidence in the supplementary affidavit, the directions of the court were that no new evidence was to be introduced. The court gave that firm direction because the applicant had introduced new evidence through his supplementary affidavit. 3.Regrettably, the applicant has raised the issue of new evidence but has not identified the specific paragraphs which should be struck out. Notwithstanding the above omission, the position of the court is that any new evidence introduced through the respondent’s supplementary affidavit does not form part of their evidence. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.B M EBOSO [MR]ELC JUDGEIn the presence of:Mr Mugambi for the Respondents.Mr Otieno C for the Applicant.Court Assistant – Mr. E. Tupet.