Shembekho v Chemche & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 193 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 275 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court threw out a six-year-old ex parte judgment because the defendants' lawyer was never properly served with the hearing notice.
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 defendants have met the threshold for setting aside ex parte judgment
- 2.whether the court should authorize police to provide security for the defendant's eviction
Key legal issues
#Whether the defendants met the threshold for setting aside the ex parte judgment of 6th March 2018
Yes. The court found the signature on the hearing notice of 14th December 2017 was not the defendants' advocate's, so service was not effected, the matter proceeded without affording the defendants a hearing, and the judgment was irregular in that sense; the ex parte judgment was set aside and the case reopened
The court compared the impugned signature on the hearing notice with undisputed signatures of Mr. Kraido on the Memorandum of Appearance and a prior hearing notice. It found no semblance between them. Since service of the hearing notice was not proved, the hearing proceeded without notice, violating Article 50 fair-hearing rights. Once service fails, the court need not interrogate whether a triable defence exists. Both parties were nonetheless indolent, but fair hearing and interests of justice favoured setting aside.
Whether police should provide security for the defendants' eviction
No. The application depended on the ex parte judgment which was set aside, so the security-for-eviction application was dismissed
The plaintiff's application of 24th July 2024 sought police supervision of eviction pursuant to the judgment of 6th March 2018. Having set aside that judgment and reopened the case, the court found the application baseless and dismissed it. The court also noted the plaintiff's own delay since 2018 in serving or executing the judgment, finding both parties guilty of indolence.
Legal principles established
#- Service of the hearing notice must be confirmed before interrogating whether a defence raises triable issues; where service was not effected, the right to a fair hearing is engaged
- The power to set aside ex parte judgment is discretionary, to be exercised judiciously and upon reasons, considering both reasons for non-attendance and whether a triable defence exists
Court orders
#- 1.The ex parte judgment delivered on 6th March 2018 is set aside
- 2.The case is reopened
- 3.The defendant is granted leave to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses
- 4.The plaintiff's application dated 24th July 2024 seeking police security for eviction is dismissed
- 5.No order as to costs
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; setting aside of ex parte judgment under Order 10 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Order directing the Officer in charge Malava Police Station to provide security and supervise the eviction of the defendants
The application was premised on the ex parte judgment which the court set aside; it was baseless
Costs
No order as to costs - each party to bear their own costs (court made no order as to costs in view of indolence on the part of both parties)
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 ex parte judgment delivered on 6th March 2018 is hereby set aside. The case is reopened. The defendant is granted leave to cross examine the plaintifi’s witnesses. In view of the circumstances obtaining in this matter, and the indolence on the part of both parties, I make no order as to costs.
Where service of the hearing notice was not efiected, then it is not necessary to interrogate the issue as to whether there is a triable defence because Article 50 of the Constitution grants everyone a right to a fair hearing which includes the right of a defendant to be made aware of the hearing date
A cursory look of the same confirms Mr. Kraido’s averments that the signature on the impugned hearing notice is not his.
Therefore, both parties are guilty of indolence, yet for the sake of fair hearing and in the interests of justice, the court is convinced that the defendants deserve the orders sought in their application.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shembekho v Chemche & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 193 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 275 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (suit over parcel No. N. Kabras/Malava/3446). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/275/eng@2026-01-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.