Ndovu Estates Ltd v Ntutu (Environment and Land Appeal E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 380 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Narok dismissed Ndovu Estates' appeal but set aside the 2019 judgment, sending the case back for the defendant to finally present his defence.
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 instant appeal is merited
- 2.Who should bear costs of this appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the Appellant's application to set aside the Ruling of 6th January 2021 and confirm the judgment of 10th July 2019
The appeal was not merited; the trial court exercised its discretion properly, and the Appellant's application was premature as it should first have sought review or interpretation of the 6th January 2021 ruling
The court found that the Ruling of 6th January 2021 stayed but did not set aside the judgment, leaving ambiguity. However, the Appellant waited two years before moving the court, making the application premature. The trial court's discretionary finding could not be disturbed absent misdirection. In the interest of justice under Section 3A, this court set aside the 2019 judgment itself to resolve the ambiguity, and remitted the matter for defence hearing with the Respondent obliged to fix it down.
Who bears the duty to set the matter down for defence hearing after the 6th January 2021 ruling
The Respondent (Defendant), having sought the opportunity to present its defence, bore the primary duty, but the Appellant as plaintiff and mover of the suit should also have set the suit down and served hearing notices
The court disagreed with the Respondent that it could simply wait for the Plaintiff to fix the matter, since the Respondent was the party who had applied to be allowed to present its defence. At the same time, the Plaintiff as mover of the suit should have set the matter down, served hearing notices, and then moved the court if the Respondent defaulted. Both parties bore a duty under Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act to facilitate the overriding objective of expeditious determination.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of the trial court's discretion unless it misdirected itself or was clearly wrong causing injustice
- A party granted an opportunity to present its defence bears responsibility for setting the matter down for defence hearing
- Stay of execution leaves a judgment alive but unenforceable, whereas setting aside extinguishes it
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed entirely
- 2.The judgment of 10th July 2019 delivered by Hon Gesora SPM varied and set aside under Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 3.File remitted to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Narok for setting down the matter for defence hearing
- 4.Respondent/Defendant to set the matter down for defence hearing within 30 days
- 5.If the Respondent fails to set the matter down, the orders of 9th April 2019 and the Ruling of 6th January 2021 shall stand varied and set aside and the judgment of 10th July 2019 will remain valid and enforceable
- 6.Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal and lower court proceedings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Narok
- Narok CMELC No. 7 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 65 and Section 78 of the Civil Procedure Act (first appeal)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the trial court's Ruling of 1st August 2023 and substitution with the prayers in the Notice of Motion dated 6th March 2023
The appeal lacked merit; the trial court properly exercised its discretion and the application of 6th March 2023 was premature
Costs of the appeal to the Appellant
The court directed each party to bear its own costs considering the circumstances
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs of this appeal and lower court proceedings
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.
For the above reasons, this court finds and holds that the instant Appeal is not merited, and the court proceeds to dismiss it entirely. Considering the circumstances of this matter, the court directs that each party to bear its own costs of this appeal and lower court proceedings.
the necessary orders herein is to make and/or issue an order that the judgement of 10th July 2019, delivered by Hon Gesora SPM, be and is hereby varied and set aside as provided by Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules
the said Judgment of 10th July 2019, and the consequential orders are hereby set aside, and will only be revived or reinstated and enforced in default of setting the matter down for Defence hearing by the Respondent/Defendant herein
The essence of staying the Judgment and not setting it aside meant that the said Judgment is still existing, but cannot be executed, as it is stayed.
The Appellant did not set the matter down for hearing, but chose to file the Notice of Motion Application dated 6th March 2023, and it is the considered view of this court that the said application was premature.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the hearing date as 26th May 2019 although the consent date taken was 26th March 2019; the record is internally inconsistent on dates
Contradiction in the disposition: the court simultaneously dismisses the appeal while varying and setting aside the judgment of 10th July 2019, which is relief beyond the memoranda of appeal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndovu Estates Ltd v Ntutu (Environment and Land Appeal E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 380 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Narok CMELC No. 7 of 2018 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/380/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.