Mereng & another v Mereng (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8254 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kitale dismissed landowners' appeal, confirming that litigants—not their lawyers—must actively follow up and defend their own cases.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.If the trial court exercised its discretion lawfully, in rejecting the application dated 1/11/2022 seeking to stay the enforcement of the judgment, and its consequential orders, review and setting aside of the proceedings of 26/9/2021 and the judgment dated 24/10/2022.
- 2.If the appeal is competent and has merit.
- 3.What is the order as to costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the trial court lawfully refused an adjournment and later declined to set aside the default judgment and stay execution
The trial court exercised its discretion judiciously; the appellants' conduct was dilatory and they failed to show sufficient cause.
The record showed multiple prior adjournments (22/3/2021 to 7/3/2022), a consent hearing date of 26/9/2022, and blame laid mutually between the appellants and their former advocates. The court applied the Mbogo v Shah standard, holding the decision was within the range of permissible outcomes and not arbitrary, capricious, or plainly wrong.
Whether blame on an advocate's failure to notify the client of a hearing date justifies setting aside
It does not, absent explanation of the litigant's own diligence.
The court held that where the appellants last communicated with their advocate before July 2022, when a last-adjournment order existed, they had a duty to follow up the case. Non-instruction of counsel alone, without explaining what prevented the party from performing its own duties, is insufficient cause.
Legal principles established
#- A case belongs to a litigant, not the advocate, and a party has an obligation to follow up on the progress of its own case.
- An appellate court will only interfere with the exercise of discretion if the trial court misdirected itself or was clearly wrong in the exercise of its discretion.
- A party who abandons and delays prosecution of its matter cannot later invoke the right to be heard.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court (ELC Kitale, trial court)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal under Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules against orders made in an application brought under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the refusal of adjournment and stay/review of the judgment dated 24/10/2022 and proceedings of 26/9/2022
The appellants had been granted several adjournments, abdicated their duty as litigants to follow up their case, and failed to demonstrate that the trial court exercised its discretion capriciously or on wrong principles
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
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 upshot is that the appeal herein lacks merit. It is dismissed with costs.
A case belongs to a party and not an advocate.
Courts cannot shy away from dismissing suits or refusing unnecessary or unjustified adjournments.
the discretion necessarily involves a latitude of individual choice according to the particular circumstances of each case, and that to adjourn or not to adjourn is a discretion to be exercised judiciously and upon reasons, rather than arbitrarily, capriciously, or on whim or sentiments
A party who comes to court and parks his or her matter without prosecuting it, even when given several chances, cannot, after the inevitable happens, turn around and invoke the right to be heard at the lower court
Issues in the judgment
#The name of the 1st/2nd appellants and the appeal case number are not clearly stated in the judgment; the coram only identifies counsel.
Internal date inconsistencies in the judgment.
Notice of withdrawal dated an impossible date.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mereng & another v Mereng (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8254 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment provided (appeal from Kitale ELC; suit arising from Trans Nzoia/Chepchoina/Twiga/354). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8254/eng@2025-11-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.