https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3909
The court found that counsel's claim of being denied admission to the virtual platform was false because admission was automatic and no such request was needed. The record further showed that on 24/9/2025 the court merely directed filing and exchange of submissions and set a mention date, and did not dismiss the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 3909 (KLR)
- Parties
- 1st Applicant: Florence Harun Makongo; 2nd Applicant: Nitas Achanga Lugonzo; 1st Respondent: Stanley Mafoli Musinde; 2nd Respondent: Solomon Munyasi Atianyi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case 400 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Proceedings/orders and Reinstate Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- ["A Nyukuri"]
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Reinstatement of Application, Abuse of Court Process, Virtual Court Attendance, Failure to Prosecute
- 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
Florence Harun Makongo
1st Applicant
Nitas Achanga Lugonzo
2nd Applicant
Stanley Mafoli Musinde
1st Respondent
Solomon Munyasi Atianyi
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Proceedings/orders and Reinstate Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants were entitled to setting aside of the proceedings and orders made on 24/09/2025
- 2 Whether the application dated 7/10/2025 was necessary or an abuse of the court process
- 3 Whether the application dated 26/6/2025 had in fact been dismissed for want of prosecution
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that counsel's claim of being denied admission to the virtual platform was false because admission was automatic and no such request was needed. The record further showed that on 24/9/2025 the court merely directed filing and exchange of submissions and set a mention date, and did not dismiss the pending application. Since the application dated 26/6/2025 had not been dismissed, the motion dated 7/10/2025 was unnecessary and constituted an abuse of the court process, warranting dismissal.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The notice of motion dated 7th October 2025 is dismissed.
- Costs not specifically awarded in the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Makongo & another v Musinde & another (Environment and Land Case 400 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 3909 (KLR) (17 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3909 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kakamega Environment and Land Case 400 of 2014 A Nyukuri, J June 17, 2026 Between Florence Harun Makongo 1st Applicant Nitas Achanga Lugonzo 2nd Applicant and Stanley Mafoli Musinde 1st Respondent Solomon Munyasi Atianyi 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.Before court is a notice of motion dated 7th October 2025 filed by the applicants seeking the following orders;a.Spentb.That the Honourable court do set aside the proceedings and subsequent orders made on the 24/09/2025 pending hearing and determination of this application.c.That this Honourable court be pleased to reinstate the application dated 26th June 2025 for hearing on merits and the respondent be granted leave to file their response to the application.d.That the costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is predicated on the supporting affidavit sworn by the applicant’s advocate one Andrew Masibayi Murunga on 7th October 2025. The applicant’s case is that they filed an application dated 26th June 2025 which was scheduled for directions on 24th September 2025 and that on that date, counsel was ready to prosecute the application but that he was not admitted to the court’s virtual platform. That if the application is not reinstated, the applicants will be condemned unheard. That the application is made in good faith. 3.No response was filed in respect to the application. Analysis and determination 4.The court has carefully considered the application. The single issue that arise for determination is whether the applicant deserves orders sought. 5.This court has power and discretion under the provisions of 0rder 51 Rule 15 to set aside ex parte orders. Such discretion ought to be exercised judiciously. 6.The applicant’s counsel argues that on 24th September 2025, he was ready to proceed but was not admitted into the court’s virtual platform. This assertion is misleading as the admission to this court’s virtual platform is and has always been automatic and this court does not admit parties or their counsel to its virtual platform. On the date in question, no advocate or litigant who attended court virtually sought admission because all that they needed to do was to log into the court’s virtual platform through the provided link, which is available to the public. 7.In addition, the record shows that on 24th September 2025, this court ordered parties to file and exchange written submissions in 21 days and slated the matter for mention on 19th January 2026. The court did not dismiss the application of 26th June 2025 for want of prosecution as alleged by Mr. Andrew Masibayi Murunga Advocate or at all. The application dated 26th June 2025 remains unprosecuted to date. 8.For the above reasons, the application dated 7th October 2025 was unnecessary and the same is an abuse of the court process. The same is hereby dismissed. 9.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAKAMEGA IN OPEN COURT/VIRTUALLY THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORM THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2026A. NYUKURIJUDGEIn the presence of;No appearance for the applicantNo appearance for the respondentCourt Assistant- Delphine