Waso Trading Co Limited & another v Epuyo & 277 others (Environment and Land Case E027 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 122 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Meru refused to convert a land trial to a virtual hearing, confirming Kenyan courts will insist on physical hearings where documents are contested.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a proper basis has been demonstrated to warrant a review of the order of 30/6/2025 requiring physical/open court hearing
- 2.Whether a proper case has been made to warrant condemning any of the defendants to bear travelling and upkeep expenses of the plaintiffs' witnesses at this point
Key legal issues
#Whether review of trial directions ordering physical hearing was warranted
Review refused; no proper basis demonstrated
The plaintiffs were willing to have the matter heard in open court and only sought a convenient date. The dispute involves voluminous documents alleged by Government officers to be forgeries, requiring physical cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses. Residence of the 2nd plaintiff in the USA did not justify disturbing the directions issued on 30/6/2025.
Whether defendants insisting on open court hearing should bear plaintiffs' witness expenses
Refused
The defendants were brought to court by the plaintiffs; the suit land is in Kenya and the 1st plaintiff is a Kenyan-registered company. The general rule under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act is that costs follow the event, and the 2nd plaintiff's residence abroad is not a proper basis to depart from that principle at this stage.
Legal principles established
#- Costs follow the event as a general principle under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
- Where documents are voluminous and contested as forgeries, physical attendance in court is the appropriate trial mode
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 19/9/2025 is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; application for review under the Civil Procedure Act (Section 27 cited on costs)
Relief refused
#Review of the 30/6/2025 trial directions requiring physical/open court hearing
No proper basis demonstrated; given the voluminous and contested documents, physical attendance is the appropriate trial mode
Condemnation of defendants insisting on open court hearing to pay plaintiffs' witness travel and upkeep expenses
Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; the 2nd plaintiff's residence in the USA is not a proper basis to depart from that principle
Costs
No express costs order made; the application was dismissed for lack of merit.
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 result is that the application dated 19/9/2025 is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit.
the court comes to the finding that no proper basis has been demonstrated to warrant a review of the order of 30/6/2025.
the general principle on costs is contained in Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and provides that costs follow the event.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states 'the 2nd defendant resides in Minnesotta in the United States of America' when the context indicates it is the 2nd plaintiff who resides in the USA
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Waso Trading Co Limited & another v Epuyo & 277 others (Environment and Land Case E027 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 122 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/122/eng@2026-01-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.