Peter v Muniko & another
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal in Kisumu certified a land eviction appeal urgent after the other side stayed silent, showing unanswered claims count as true.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the single judge should review and set aside his earlier refusal to certify the application as urgent
- 2.Whether the application should be certified urgent in light of the respondents' commencement of execution by eviction
Key legal issues
#Review of a single judge's refusal to certify an application urgent
The judge may, on an inter partes hearing under Rule 49(5), review and set aside his own earlier refusal to certify urgency where new developments justify it.
The applicant showed that the respondents had extracted the decree and commenced execution by eviction, with an eviction order and a security order to the OCS. The respondents filed no answer to these averments, leaving them uncontroverted. The judge was persuaded to review the earlier order and certify the application urgent.
Relevance of a replying affidavit addressing the substantive prayer on a question of urgency only
A replying affidavit that dwells on the substantive stay prayer is irrelevant to the disposal of the urgency question.
The respondents' replying affidavit dated 10th August 2026 addressed the substantive prayer for stay of execution rather than urgency. The court held its contents irrelevant for the urgency determination, leaving the applicant's averments about imminent eviction uncontroverted.
Legal principles established
#- Uncontroverted averments in an application remain uncontroverted and are taken as true where the respondent offers no answer to them.
Court orders
#- 1.The earlier order declining to certify the application as urgent is reviewed and set aside
- 2.The application is certified urgent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court (trial court referenced via Migori ELC (OS) 757 of 2017; intended appeal pending)
- Migori ELC (OS) 757 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 49 of the Court of Appeal Rules (certification of urgency and inter partes hearing under Rule 49(5))
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Ultimately and given the foregoing, I am persuaded to review and set aside my earlier order and in lieu thereof, I now certify the application urgent.
As already stated, the respondents have oered no answer to these averments. They therefore remain uncontroverted and therefore true.
the contents of this adavit are irrelevant for consideration on matters urgency, as it dwells on the substantive prayer in the application for stay execution.
Issues in the judgment
#Chronological impossibility: application dated 28th July 2026 placed before judge on 6th July 2026.
Replying affidavit dated 10th August 2026 filed pursuant to directions issued 28th September 2026.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter v Muniko & another", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E132 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2045/eng@2026-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.