https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4417

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NANYUKI** **ELCLC NO. E013 OF 2025** **MARGARET WANJIRU NDEGWA……………..……..PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **KENNETH KANJA…………………………………1ST DEFENDANT** **STELLA WANGECI GACHANJA…………..……2ND DEFENDANT** **ANTHONY GAKURU MAINA……………………..3RD DEFENDANT** **AND** **SUSAN NJERI KAROMO………………….INTERESTED PARTY** **RULING** 1. This ruling relates to two applications, one made orally on 21.4.2026 by 1st defendant for striking of plaintiff’s suit, and a formal application dated 17.4.2026 for dismissal of plaintiffs case as against the 2nd and 3rd defendants. 2. Before delving into the ruling, it is pertinent to note that the court has already delivered some rulings in respect of various applications even though the matter is at the infancy stage. Thus it is crucial to set out the short but rather acrimonious litigation history of this file. 3. The suit was filed through a plaint dated 12.5.2025 where the following orders were sought; **“** 1. **A declaration that the plaintiff being a tenant in common in L.R. No. Timau/Timau Block 7/697 is entitled to 25% share of the proceeds of the sale less due expenses pursuant to the sale agreement dated 25th March 2025.** 2. **A permanent order barring the defendants, their agents or nominees from receiving the balance of the purchase price pursuant to the sale agreement dated 25th March 2025 or the transfer of L.R. No Timau/Timau Block 7/697 to the purchaser Susan Njeri Karomo or her nominee.** 3. **Costs of the suit.”** 4. The suit was filed contemporaneously with an application in which the plaintiff was seeking temporary and permanent restraining orders barring the defendants from receiving proceeds from the sale of the suit property Timau/ Timau Block 7 697. Vide a ruling delivered on 24.9.2025, the court directed the sum of sh 5 200 000 out of the sale proceeds to be deposited in court. 5. Apparently, this order could not be complied with as the plaintiff had lodged a caveat on the suit land and the sale could not go on. This turn of affairs gave rise to the filing of the application dated 15.10.2025 by the 1st defendant seeking orders interalia the removal of the restriction. The said application was allowed vide a ruling delivered on 18.2.2026. On the same date, parties were directed to file and serve their paginated trial bundles containing their pleadings, comprehensive witness statements and documentary evidence and the Pre-trial conference was to be held on 21.4.2026. 6. Come the date of 21.4.2026 and fresh applications sprung up, whereby counsel for the plaintiffs informed the court that they had filed an application dated 16.2.2026, while the 2nd and 3rd defendant’s counsel had an application dated 17.4.2026. It turned out that the application dated 16.2.2026 was not filed under certificate of urgency, that it was only filed on 20.4.2026 at 16.47 hours, thus the court is yet to give directions on the same. 7. The oral application by 1st defendant was also made on 21.4.2026. The court deems it fit to determine the oral application and the application of 17.4.2026 together. *The Oral application made on 21.4.2026* 1. Counsel for the 1st defendant stated that parties were directed to file the index of their documents by 17.4.2026 failure to which such documents would stand as expunged. That the plaintiff did not comply and instead, they filed an application with a further witness statement hence their suit should be dismissed. 2. In opposition thereof, the plaintiff stated that they were unable to comply without a defence from the defendants, adding that they were only served with a defence and witness statements a day before. They sought leave to file a reply to defence. *Application dated 17.4.2026* 1. The 2nd and 3rd defendants contend that the suit against them should be dismissed as it discloses no cause of action against them. They admit that the suit property is indeed jointly registered between the parties. However, they argue that the dispute is between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant who are a couple, and that the court has given directions that their share be deposited in court. 2. I have considered the two applications. On the oral application, I find that the court did give the following orders on 18.2.2026; **“** 1. **Pre-trial conference on 21.4.2026.** 2. **Parties to file/serve their paginated Trial Bundles containing their own pleadings, comprehensive written statements which cross reference to the document and documentary evidence with an index by 18.4.2026.** 3. **Documents filed or served outside the given timelines shall stand as expunged”** 4. The 1st defendant did not rebutt the averments made by plaintiffs counsel that they served their pleading on 20.4.2026. The 1st defendant did not explain the nature and extent of their compliance with the court’s directions of 18.2.2026, including the issue of service. Thus this is a clear case of the ‘ *pot calling the kettle black”.* 5. In the case of **Isiolo Stage View Enterprises v Isiolo County Government & 2 others [2018] eKLR,** the court had this to say regarding time lines; **“Time standards help courts to closely manage and monitor the processing of cases from filing to conclusion. Further, time standards set defined targets for the completion of key process steps and events, establish overall goals that judges and lawyers must meet, create the expectation of what constitutes timeliness, and are essential to eliminating and avoiding case backlogs. The standards reflect a commitment by the courts to complete cases promptly, and also reflect what court users’ regard as a reasonable time for the resolution of case. The net effect of non-compliance with the set timelines is delay, creation of backlog, more acrimony and even confusion."** 1. This far, I find that the pre-trial directions given 18.2.2026 cannot apply in view of non compliance by parties across the board. 2. On the application by the 2nd and 3rd defendants, I find that the primary pleadings in this matter do set out a cause of action against the defendants. It is upto the defendants to surmount a defence geared towards vindicating themselves against the allegations made against them. To this end, I find that the application of 17.4.2026 is not merited. 3. I must point out that for one reason or another, the parties herein seem to be avoiding a trial by all means going by the manner in which applications have been filed right left and center. This calls for Active Management of the matter so as to avoid the birth of a Gordian Knot. In the case of **Lawrence** **Kinyua Mwai v Nyariginu Farmers Co Ltd & another [2019] eKLR,** where the court severed a Gordian knot by bringing to an end a dispute spanning 30 years and counting, the court had this to say about Active Case Management; **“In exercising its judicial authority this court has a duty to facilitate just and expeditious determination of proceedings. One of the cardinal principles in our constitution is “the expeditious delivery of justice” –see Article 159 (2) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya, which in effect codifies the 17th century maxim “Justice delayed is justice denied”. This means that if justice is not provided in a timely manner to the parties, it loses its importance and it violates the human rights of the litigants and their families. That is precisely why rights to speedy trials are incorporated in law worldwide………………** **Active Case management enhances processing efficiency, promotes court control of cases, and provides judicial officers with the tools that may be used to dispose off a case efficiently. These techniques reduce delays and case backlogs, and provide information to support the strategic allocation of time and resources - all of which encourage generally better services from courts.** **Active Case management is also the effort by courts to handle cases in such a manner that they are resolved fairly and as promptly and economically as is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The fairness part can be found within the notion of procedural justice while the promptness and economics part of the case management can be found within the notion of the efficiency of justice. Efficiency of justice implies that justice is done at reasonable costs to the parties and the court and within a reasonable time, that is without an abnormal delay. Procedural justice concerns the fairness, consistency and the transparency of the processes by which progress in a case is made”.** 1. In the case at hand, this court is not even certain as to whether pleadings have closed. As such, and going forward the court will give directions geared towards the closure of pleadings, pretrial exercise and the trial. The court will not hesitate to strike out applications that are filed with the objective of delaying the prosecution of the main suit. 2. For now, both the oral application made by counsel for the 1st defendant as well as the application dated 17.4.2026 are dismissed. Each party is to bear their own costs of the said applications. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.** **LUCY N. MBUGUA** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** **Nancy Mwangi – C/A** **Kithinji for 1st defendant** **M/s Kibet for plaintiff** **Kipkorir for 2nd and 3rd defendants**