Ndungu t/a Urutagwo Mwiruti Women Group v Kanyia [2025] KEELC 5045 (KLR)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment and Land Case 1255 of 2013
Judge
CA Ochieng
The court dismissed an application to set aside dismissal and reinstate an 11-year-old suit, finding no sufficient cause for repeated non-attendance and delay.
Al Wakil Tranference & General Trading Company Limited v SOS-Kinderdoff International [2025] KEHC 4976 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Suit 2277 of 1998
Judge
PM Mulwa
The court found that the defendant/applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if proceedings were not stayed. The possibility of prejudice was speculative, as the appellate court could still allow the proposed amendment or direct the reopening of proceedings if the appeal succeeded. The application for stay was made after an inordinate and unjustified delay of over twenty years, and the plaintiff's case had already been concluded. The court emphasized that a stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action that interferes with the right to have a case he…
Ayuma & 11 others v Trustees of the Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Corporation & 2 others; Kothari (Interested Party); Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K) (Intended Petitioner) [2025] KEHC 5 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Petition 65 of 2010
Judge
LN Mugambi
The High Court dismissed an application to review and reinstate a joinder motion, holding that no error on the face of the record was shown and review cannot replace an appeal.
Thuo & another v Adam & 6 others [2024] KEELC 6795 (KLR)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2024
Judge
CG Mbogo
The Environment and Land Court dismissed an appeal against refusal to reopen a case and amend pleadings, finding the appellants had delayed and would prejudice the respondents.
The court found that while there was delay in bringing the application to amend the plaint and enjoin additional defendants, the applicant had always been aware of the subdivision and sale of the suit property. However, the proposed new defendants are the current registered owners of the resultant subdivisions, and any orders made in the suit are likely to affect them. The court noted that previous litigation did not conclusively determine the ownership of the suit property, as clarified by the Court of Appeal, and thus the matter is not res judicata. The court exercised its discretion to all…
The High Court dismissed a plaintiff’s bid to reopen its case and file extra documents, finding no sufficient cause, due diligence, or exceptional reason.
Musyimi & 2 others v Muriuki & another [2024] KEELC 3819 (KLR)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment & Land Case 1042 of 2015
Judge
JA Mogeni
The court found that the application to reopen the 1st Defendant's case was made after both parties had closed their cases, submissions had been directed, and a judgment date set. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not calling the witness earlier or for the delay in filing the application. The court held that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and the reasons advanced—such as the advocate's lack of the witness's diary—were insufficient. The court emphasized that its discretion to reopen a case must be exercised judiciously and not to fill gaps in evidence or…