Gonzalez v Francis Githinji Ngatia & another (Environment and Land Appeal E010 (A) of 2025) [2026] KEELC 597 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court set aside a default judgment entered without proper service, confirming such judgments must be overturned as a matter of right.
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 preferred appeal by the Appellant vide the Records of Appeal dated 17th June, 2025 and the Memorandum of Appeal dated 11th June, 2025 is tenable
- 2.Whether the orders sought and to be made by the Court in this appeal do meet the best ends of justice
- 3.Who bears the costs of the appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant was properly served with summons and pleadings in the lower court
Service was not properly effected; the process server's affidavit claiming personal service was contradicted by the 2nd Respondent's own replying affidavit confirming service was upon the Appellant's caretaker, rendering the interlocutory judgment irregular
The court compared the affidavit of service sworn by Samuel Musyoka claiming personal service with the 2nd Respondent's replying affidavit confirming that service was effected on the Appellant's caretaker. Finding the process server's averments distorted and untrue, the court held service was faulty and the default judgment irregular. Citing James Kanyita Nderitu v Ghikas and Patrick Omondi Opiyo, it held such a judgment must be set aside ex debito justitiae as a matter of judicial duty, without inquiry into triable issues or delay.
Whether the lower court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction over the suit
The Appellant failed to prove the value of the suit property exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Senior Principal Magistrate's Court; no valuation report was availed, and the only evidence was the sale agreement showing a purchase price of Kshs 2,900,000/-
Although the Appellant asserted the property was worth Kshs 20,500,000/-, beyond the Kshs 15,000,000/- limit for a Senior Principal Magistrate under Section 7(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, the court found no valuation report or tangible evidence supporting that valuation. The plaint itself pleaded a purchase consideration of Kshs 2,900,000/-. The jurisdictional challenge therefore failed for want of proof of the value of the subject matter.
Whether the lower court suit was res sub judice given the pending Kwale ELC Civil suit no 68 of 2021
The doctrine of sub judice applied: the parties, subject matter and cause of action in the lower court suit were substantially the same as in the earlier pending ELC suit, and the doctrine was abused by the parties instituting the lower court matter
The court found the two suits had almost similar parties, the same subject matter and similar causes of action, differing only in the forum. Confirming the existence of the pending Kwale ELC suit in which the Appellant and Respondents were also defendants, the court held the sub judice doctrine under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act was engaged, and to avoid conflicting decisions and embarrassment it invoked its power under Section 81(2)(h) of the Civil Procedure Act to consolidate the suits.
What orders best meet the ends of justice
The appeal succeeded on the ground of defective service; rather than a retrial in the subordinate court, the lower court suit was consolidated with the pending ELC suit, with the ELC file as the lead file, and the judgment was set aside
The court exercised its discretion in favour of the Appellant on the basis that the judgment was irregularly entered after the suit proceeded without service. It declined to remit the matter for retrial before the Chief Magistrate's Court and instead consolidated the two pending suits to be heard together, directing pre-trial before the ELC. It also ordered release of the Kshs 1,000,000/- escrow security and awarded costs to the Appellant.
Legal principles established
#- A default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served or not properly served with summons is an irregular judgment which must be set aside ex debito justitiae, as a matter of right and not of discretion
- There is a rebuttable presumption that the contents of an affidavit of service are accurate; the burden lies on the party questioning it to show the return is incorrect
- A court without jurisdiction must down its tools immediately; jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment
- The sub judice rule under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act bars trial of a later suit where the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal through the Memorandum of Appeal dated 11th June, 2025 be and is hereby allowed with costs
- 2.The default judgment delivered and dated 5th October 2022 in CM ELC No E065 of 2021 be and is hereby set aside
- 3.Rather than referring the matter back for retrial, the lower court suit (Kwale CM-ELC Civil suit no. 65 of 2021) be consolidated with Kwale ELC Civil suit no. 68 of 2021 - Francisca M. Kambe v Mariamu Suleiman Bati & 5 Others
- 4.The lead file to be Kwale ELC Civil suit no 68 of 2021, where all filings of pleadings and recording of proceedings will take place
- 5.Mention on 27th April, 2026 for pre-trial conference pursuant to Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and further directions including a hearing date
- 6.Order for forthwith release to the Appellant of the sum of Kshs 1,000,000.00 held in a joint escrow interest-earning account of Messrs. Sachdeva, Nabhan & Company Advocates and Messrs. Chimera, Kamotho & Company Advocates as security for performance of the decree pursuant to the Court's Ruling delivered on 28th May, 2025
- 7.The costs of the appeal to be borne by the 1st & 2nd Respondents and awarded to the Appellant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court (Environment and Land) at Kwale
- CM ELC No E065 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the subordinate court under Section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Order 42 Rules 11, 13 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
- Consolidated with
- Kwale ELC Civil suit no 68 of 2021 - Francisca M. Kambe v Mariamu Suleiman Bati & 5 Others (Formerly ELC Mombasa Suit no 355 of 2017)
Relief refused
#Remission of the matter back to the lower court for retrial
Instead of referring the matter back to the Chief Magistrate's Court for retrial, the Court consolidated the lower court suit with the pending ELC suit at Kwale
Costs
The costs of the appeal to be borne by the 1st & 2nd Respondents and awarded to the Appellant (appeal allowed with costs)
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.
That Judgement by the Appellant through the Memorandum of Appeal dated 11th June, 2025 be and is hereby allowed with costs and
That an order that the default Judgement delivered and dated 5th October 2022 in the Civil Case of “CM ELC No E065 of 2021 Francis Githinji Ngatia & Kenneth Ndumbi Njoroge – Versus - Bruno Gonzalez” in the lower court be and is hereby set aside.
the court finds that service of the summons to enter appearance was not properly efiected and the interlocutory judgement is therefore irregular.
the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is thus not fully supported by any tangible evidence and the court finds that no prove as to the value of the property has been placed before it save for the agreement purchasing the property.
The main purposes of consolidation is therefore to save costs, time and efiort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action.
It is also clear that the doctrine of sub judice was abused by the parties instituting the lower court matter.
That the costs of the appeal to be borne by the 1st & 2nd Respondents be awarded to the Appellant.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent lower court case numbers throughout the judgment - the appeal is variously described as arising from CM ELC No E065 of 2011 and E065 of 2021
The court states in the analysis that the appeal 'partly succeeds', yet the final disposition allows the appeal in full and grants all substantive relief sought
The judgment states the court could access only the Appellant's submissions, with none from the Respondents, yet describes service of the appeal documents and consensus directions
The Appellant withdrew Ground Number 5 of the Memorandum of Appeal (quantum), which the court nonetheless framed as part of the appeal grounds
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gonzalez v Francis Githinji Ngatia & another (Environment and Land Appeal E010 (A) of 2025) [2026] KEELC 597 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Court Appeal at Kwale (arising from CM ELC No E065 of 2021, Kwale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/597/eng@2026-02-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.