Abdalla v Hassan & 15 others (Civil Suit 210 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 1324 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court refused to let late-moving defendants rejoin a land case, ruling four years of unexplained inaction forfeits your chance to be heard.
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 Notice of Motion application dated 1st November, 2024 is merited?
- 2.Who will bear the Costs of this application?
Key legal issues
#Whether the proceedings should be set aside and the Applicants allowed to file a Statement of Defence
The application was not merited; the Applicants had participated in the proceedings, had authorised the 16th Defendant to act for them, a defence was on record, and they failed to explain the delay in filing their own defence.
The court noted the suit was instituted in 2021 and that the Applicants had not filed a memorandum of appearance or defence as required under Orders 5 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The hearing proceeded in their presence on 25th September 2024 with the 16th Defendant testifying on their behalf under written authorities. The court invoked the maxim that equity does not aid the indolent, and held that allowing the defence at that stage would reopen the case, contrary to the doctrine that litigation must come to an end.
Costs of the application
Costs follow the event and were awarded to the respondents against the Applicants.
The court applied Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, holding that costs are discretionary and follow the outcome of the legal action. Since the application was dismissed, the Applicants were to bear the costs of the application.
Legal principles established
#- A party must be vigilant about the progress of their own suit and indolence will not be rewarded by the court
- Costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 1st November, 2024 be and is hereby dismissed with costs
- 2.The Judgment date remains as scheduled by the Court on 30th May, 2025
- 3.The 1st, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants shall pay the costs of this application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, Sections 3A and 63(e) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the proceedings and all consequential orders thereunder
The Applicants gave no cogent reason for the four-year delay in filing a defence and their right to be heard was not violated as they authorised the 16th Defendant and a defence was on record
Leave to file a Statement of Defence out of time
Allowing the defence at that stage would reopen the case and perpetuate delay
Costs
The application was dismissed with costs, and the 1st, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants/Applicants shall pay the costs of the application.
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.
That the Notice of Motion application dated 1st November, 2024 by the 1st, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants/Applicant herein lacks merit and hence it be and is hereby dismissed with costs.
I am guided by the Equity maxim – "Equity does not aid the Indolent".
This Court shall not take part in being part of compromising the suit because of the indolence of a party most especially because a party should be aware of what is happening in their suit.
That would be perpetuating the doctrine of "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied" and that "Litigation Must come to an end".
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the Notice of Motion application, referring to it as dated 1st November, 2024 in the introduction but as dated 25th September, 2024 in the analysis
The judgment inconsistently states the deferred judgment date, at one point as 20th January, 2025 and in the disposition as 30th May, 2025
The judgment inconsistently states that judgment delivery was deferred on 30th January, 2025 while elsewhere recording it was set down for 20th January, 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdalla v Hassan & 15 others (Civil Suit 210 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 1324 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1324/eng@2025-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.