Orero & 5 others v Ombewa (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 02 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5103 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court saved a land suit from dismissal because the plaintiffs proved they had been actively prosecuting it, not just sleeping on it.
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 Plaintiffs have shown sufficient cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
The Plaintiffs showed sufficient cause; the suit was not ripe for dismissal as it had been actively prosecuted, with directions issued on the Preliminary Objection on 12/11/2024.
The court traced the suit's activity: a status quo ruling of 18/07/2024, directions on the Preliminary Objection on 12/11/2024 and further directions on 30/01/2025. The Plaintiff explained counsel's non-attendance on 30/01/2025 as inadvertent failure to diarize. Given this activity and explanation, dismissal was premature; instead the court issued timelines to expedite the hearing.
Legal principles established
#- Where a plaintiff demonstrates sufficient cause for inactivity, the court may decline to dismiss a suit under Order 17 Rule 2(1); dismissal for want of prosecution is discretionary.
Court orders
#- 1.Notice to Show Cause discharged - suit not dismissed for want of prosecution
- 2.Plaintiff directed to expedite the hearing of the suit following withdrawal of the Preliminary Objection
- 3.Parties directed to file and exchange their trial bundles within the next 30 days
- 4.In default of filing and exchanging trial bundles, matter to be mentioned on 18th July 2025 for dismissal for want of compliance
- 5.Mention on 18th July 2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
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.
In any suit in which no application has been made or step taken by either party for one year, the court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed, and if cause is not shown to its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit.
I am satisfied that this suit is not ripe for dismissal just yet and as such the Plaintifis have shown suficient cause as to why it should not be dismissed.
The Plaintifi is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit since the Preliminary Objection was withdrawn and the matter can now proceed to for hearing and to its logical conclusion.
The parties are directed to file their trial bundles within the next 30 days and exchange them, in default the matter will be mentioned again, on 18th July 2025 for dismissal for want of compliance.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not disclose the case title, case number or court station; parties are referred to only generically as Plaintiffs and Defendants.
The date of the Notice to Show Cause issuance appears inconsistent: it is dated 03/02/2025, yet the judgment states the matter came up on 31/01/2025 when the Notice was issued.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Orero & 5 others v Ombewa (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 02 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5103 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Originating Summons filed 15/01/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5103/eng@2025-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.