Seroney & 5 others v County Government of Nandi (Environment and Land Case E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5628 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 objection to the admission of the replying affidavit sworn on 23rd July 2025, filed and served outside the set timelines, is sustainable
Key legal issues
#Whether a replying affidavit filed and served out of the timelines set under the Civil Procedure Rules should be expunged
The objection failed. The affidavit was duly served, the explanation for the delay was satisfactory, and the ends of justice under Articles 48, 50(1) and 25(c) of the Constitution and section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act favoured admission of the affidavit, with leave for the applicants to file a further affidavit.
The court noted the application was brought under Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and that Order 50 governs time. It found the affidavit duly served and the explanation for the delay (the deponent being on leave and engaged with the Senate) satisfactory. Guided by the constitutional rights of access to justice and fair hearing, and the ends-of-justice provisions, the court admitted the affidavit but granted the applicants leave to reply by further affidavit within 21 days.
Legal principles established
#- The right to be heard is fundamental and permeates the entire justice system, and courts should be guided by the ends of justice when dealing with late-filed but duly served process
Court orders
#- 1.The duly served replying affidavit sworn on 23rd July 2025 is admitted as a response to the application
- 2.The applicant's counsel to file and serve further affidavit to the replying affidavit within 21 days from the date of the ruling
- 3.The parties to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 within the next 21 days from the date of the ruling
- 4.The matter set for 1st October 2025 to confirm compliance and for directions
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 48, 50(1) and 25(c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act, guided by Order 51 and Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Relief refused
#Expungement of the replying affidavit sworn on 23rd July 2025 and a declaration that the application is unopposed
The court found the explanation for the delay in filing and service satisfactory and held that admitting the affidavit served the ends of justice
Costs
No costs order made
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.
I find the explanation for delay in filing and service of the same satisfactory in the circumstances.
It is well established that the right to be heard is fundamental and permeates the entire justice system
Accordingly, the objection to the replying affidavit is devoid of merit. The same fails and I hereby direct thus;
The duly served replying affidavit sworn on 23rd July 2025, is admitted as a response to the application.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the underlying application and contempt citation but does not state the case number or the names of the six applicants in full; only the deponent (Dr Francis K. Sang, County Secretary) and the County Executive Committee member are identified by role
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Seroney & 5 others v County Government of Nandi (Environment and Land Case E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5628 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5628/eng@2025-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.