Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment

Chitechi v Kivitu t/a Kalehas Enterprises Ltd & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7303 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 October 2025
ANA. Nyukuri
730 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a notice of motion dated 24th March 2025 filed by the plaintiff in a matter before the Environment and Land Court at Kakamega. The motion, purportedly brought under 'The Civil Procedures Land and Environment Acts of 2015 (sic) and Civil Procedure rules)', sought numerous orders arising from proceedings in CMC Suit No. 324 of 2012 at Kakamega Law Courts, including that the 4th respondent transfer parcel Butsotso/Indangalasia/6094 to the applicant as sole proprietor and expunge the name of Joseph Munanga Khayumbi from the title, and that parcels Butsotso/Esumeyia/1488, 13543, 3794 and 3795, guaranteed by the 1st respondent under Jackyline Muyonga Shiter T/A Kalehas Enterprises, be expunged from threats of the 2nd respondents. The application was opposed. The court (A. Nyukuri, J) found that the motion attempted to inform the court of several matters without seeking any specific prayers, and that its contents were unintelligible and incoherent such that the applicant's message could not be discerned. The application was accordingly dismissed in its entirety with costs to the respondents. No authorities were cited and no substantive rights were determined.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the application dated 24th March 2025 is capable of being understood and granted

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the notice of motion dated 24th March 2025 was granted

Holding

The application was dismissed because it was unintelligible, incoherent and did not seek specific prayers.

Reasoning

The court examined the motion and found that it attempted to inform the court of several matters without seeking any specific prayers. The message the applicant wished to convey could not be discerned, rendering the application incapable of being understood. On that basis the entire motion was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An application that is unintelligible and incoherent, and which does not seek any specific prayers, is liable to be dismissed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 24th March 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondents

The bench

#

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

AN
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Purportedly 'The Civil Procedures Land and Environment Acts of 2015 (sic) and Civil Procedure rules)'

Relief refused

#

All prayers in the notice of motion dated 24th March 2025, including expungement of Joseph Munanga Khayumbi's name from title Butsotso/Indangalasia/6094 and transfer of that parcel to the applicant

The application was unintelligible and incoherent and did not seek any specific prayers

p. 2

Costs

costs to the respondents

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.

The application as it appears seeks to inform court several matters and does not seek for any specific prayers.
p. 2defect of the application
the instant application is not capable of being understood. For those reasons the application dated 24th March 2025 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
p. 2disposition

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Jurisdictional basis of the application is mis-cited on its face

minor

Case number of this suit is not stated in the judgment

minor

The judgment refers inconsistently to the related lower-court suits (civil suit 5 of 2012 vs civil case No. 5 of 2021 CMC)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chitechi v Kivitu t/a Kalehas Enterprises Ltd & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7303 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7303/eng@2025-10-15

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