Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Muatha v Mwikya & another [2025] KEELC 5441 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court declined to reinstate a suit dismissed for want of prosecution, finding it had abated after the plaintiff’s death and had become moot.
Odhiambo v Mwangi [2025] KEELC 5382 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court reinstated a suit dismissed for non-attendance, accepting counsel’s explanation of virtual hearing and power issues.
Athman & 4 others (Suing on behalf of all the 402 Residents of Utange Section I Mainland North) v Said (Sued as a beneficiary of the Late Said Saleh Sherman alias Said Swaleh Nguru); Muye & 14 others (Interested Parties) [2025] KEELC 5304 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court dismissed a motion to review, set aside, vary, reinstate, and join parties after failing to identify any apparent error on the record.
In re Estate of the Late Cheptoo Cheboswony (Deceased) [2025] KEHC 10201 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had demonstrated sufficient cause for their nonappearance and inactivity, as they were not served with the notice of dismissal and the lower court file had been missing for a significant period. The court emphasized that the administration of justice requires disputes to be determined on their merits and that procedural lapses should not bar a litigant from pursuing their rights. Exercising its discretion under the Civil Procedure Act and relevant rules, the court set aside the dismissal order and reinstated the suit, directing that it be set down for heari…
Source excerpt
In re Estate of the Late James Kibiego Tiren (Deceased) [2025] KEHC 10202 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for nonappearance at the hearing that led to the dismissal of the suit. The disappearance of the court file and lack of notice of the hearing date were circumstances beyond the applicant's control. The court emphasized that justice is best served by hearing cases on their merits rather than disposing of them on technicalities. Exercising its discretion under Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court set aside the dismissal and reinstated the suit for hearing, scheduling a pre-trial conference to proceed with th…
Source excerpt
Wagah v Mwai [2025] KEELC 5249 (KLR)
The appellate court found that the trial court did not err in dismissing the application for summary judgment, as the defence raised bona fide triable issues, including a boundary dispute and denial of encroachment, which required determination at trial. The court affirmed that summary judgment is a draconian remedy reserved for clear cases with no defence, and the presence of a plausible defence necessitates a full hearing. However, the appellate court held that the dismissal of the suit for non-attendance was not justified, as counsel for the appellant was present in the morning holding bri…
Source excerpt
Muntukei v Magana Holdings Limited & another [2025] KEELC 5244 (KLR)
The court struck out a review application against dismissal of a suit, holding it was filed under the wrong procedure and should have been brought under Order 17 rule 6.
Ndungu t/a Urutagwo Mwiruti Women Group v Kanyia [2025] KEELC 5045 (KLR)
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.
Wekesa (As Legal Representative of the Estate of George E. Wekesa) & another v Taib; Wekesa (Objector) [2025] KEELC 5015 (KLR)
The court dismissed an application to set aside dismissal and reinstate a motion, finding no credible explanation for non-attendance or delay.
Mwangi v Warsan Toyota Garissa & another [2025] KEELRC 2043 (KLR)
The court found that the letter from the claimant's former advocate, relied upon by the respondents as new evidence, was authored after a valid notice of change of advocates had been filed and served. As such, the former advocate was no longer on record, and any communication from them post-notice was irrelevant to the suit. The court further held that the letter was addressed to advocates who were not parties or on record in the matter, rendering its contents hearsay and of no probative value. The court was not persuaded that the claimant had misled it or that the principles for reinstatemen…
Source excerpt
Explore more
