Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 8th November 2024

Republic v National Land Commission & 2 others; Kamasas Farmers Co-operative Society (Interested Party); Eastern Produce Kenya Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Civil Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6210 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 September 2025
1,364 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed late-filed court submissions, confirming that procedural deadlines should not block a party's right to a fair hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet (G M A Ongondo, J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 8th November 2024 by the 1st respondent/applicant seeking to have its submissions filed on 26th September 2024 deemed properly filed. The applicant explained that after a ruling of 13th June 2024 the parties were directed to file submissions; on 26th September 2024 the court noted no submissions were on record and gave three days to file. Counsel was engaged in a three-Judge matter at Iten (Kituo cha Sheria-vs-Honourable Attorney General) and faced e-filing challenges, leading to late filing and a direction of 15th October 2024 that the submissions would not be considered. The Ex parte applicant opposed through grounds of opposition, arguing no cogent reason for the delay and prejudice from new issues; the 2nd and 3rd respondents supported the application and the interested party did not oppose. The court held that under Article 159(2)(d) and the overriding objective, justice should not be sacrificed on procedural technicality, and that sections 3 and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act and Articles 48, 50(1) and 25(c) guarantee access to justice and fair hearing. Finding the explanation satisfactory, the court allowed the application in terms of prayer one, deeming the submissions properly filed, with costs in the cause.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the application and the grounds of opposition are meritorious
  2. 2.Whether the 1st respondent/applicant has given satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing submissions out of time
  3. 3.Whether the applicant's submissions filed on 26th September 2024 should be deemed properly filed

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether out-of-time submissions should be admitted

Holding

The applicant gave a satisfactory explanation for the delay and has an unlimited right to fair hearing; the submissions filed 26th September 2024 are deemed properly filed

Reasoning

The court noted that following the introduction of the overriding objective and Article 159(2)(d), justice must not be sacrificed on the altar of procedural technicality. It invoked sections 3 and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act and Articles 48, 50(1) and 25(c) on access to justice and fair hearing. The delay was attributed to counsel's involvement in a three-Judge matter at Iten and e-filing challenges, and the court found this explanation satisfactory, exercising its discretion in favour of admission.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Courts should sustain rather than strike out pleadings or matters on purely technical grounds, per the overriding objective and Article 159(2)(d)
  • The right to be heard before an adverse decision is a fundamental right permeating the justice system

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The submissions filed on 26th September 2024 by the respondent/applicant are deemed as properly filed
  2. 2.Costs in the cause

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3 and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015; Articles 159(2)(d) and (e), 48, 50(1) and 25(c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010

Relief refused

#

Costs of the application

The court granted costs in the cause rather than awarding them immediately

p. 4

Costs

Costs in the cause

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.

Wherefore, the application dated 8th November 2024 is hereby allowed in terms of prayer number one as regards the submissions filed on 26th October 2024 with costs in the cause.
p. 4Final orders
It is trite law that the general trend, following the introduction of the overriding objective in various statutes as well as Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, is that the courts strive to sustain rather than strike out pleading or a matter purely on technical grounds.
p. 3Overriding objective and technicalities
the finding of this court is that the applicant has the right to access justice and an unlimited right to fair hearing of the application inclusive of the submissions duly filed pursuant to the directions of the court herein
p. 3Right to fair hearing

Issues in the judgment

#
material

The judgment states the submissions were filed on 26th September 2024 but the final order refers to submissions 'filed on 26th October 2024'

minor

The judgment refers to leave and directions dated inconsistently - the narrative cites directions of 13th June 2024 and 15th October 2024, but the respondent's submissions refer to leave 'given on 13th June 2025' and 'on 15th October 2025'

minor

Duplicated wording in reference to Order 50

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v National Land Commission & 2 others; Kamasas Farmers Co-operative Society (Interested Party); Eastern Produce Kenya Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Civil Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6210 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 8th November 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6210/eng@2025-09-23

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.