Hassan & 12 others v National Bank of Kenya Limited & 2 others (Land Case E032 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1490 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Two Kwale land suits were dismissed after the plaintiffs failed to attend their own hearing, showing courts can end cases when parties do not show up.
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 court should dismiss the suits for non-attendance by the plaintiffs on the hearing date under Order 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
- 2.Whether the plaintiff's counsel's oral application for dismissal under Order 12(1) should be granted
- 3.Whether the defendants should be protected from future suits on the same subject matter
- 4.What orders as to costs should issue
Key legal issues
#Consequences of non-attendance at a full hearing under Order 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The court exercised its discretion to dismiss both suits for plaintiffs' non-attendance, the defendants having been present and ready to proceed
The court set out Order 12(1) and (3), noting the discretion to dismiss where parties do not attend after the suit is called on for hearing. Counsel for the plaintiffs admitted he was not ready with the plaintiffs or witnesses, and the defendants were present and ready. Relying on Universal Bank Limited v Paraminder Singh Virdi and Wendano Matuu Company Limited v Stephen Ndambuki Muli, the court found non-attendance by the plaintiffs established and dismissed both suits, awarded costs and closed the files.
Estoppel from filing a similar suit in future, sought by the defendants under Order 12 Rules 1, 2, 3 & 6
The court did not expressly grant the estoppel request, though dismissal was made under Order 12 Rule 6 Sub-Rules (1) & (2), which includes the bar on filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action
The defendants asked that the plaintiffs be estopped from filing a similar suit. The final order invoked Order 12 Rules 1, 3 and 6 Sub-Rules (1) & (2), and the files were closed as settled, effectively embedding the Rule 6 consequences in the dismissal without a separate express pronouncement on estoppel.
Legal principles established
#- Where neither party attends when the suit is called on for hearing, the court has discretion to dismiss the suit for non-attendance
- A suit belongs to the client and not to the advocate, so counsel's inability to proceed cannot hold a matter hostage
Court orders
#- 1.That ELC No. E032 of 2024 and ELC E053 of 2025 be and are hereby dismissed for non-attendance by the plaintiffs during the hearing date of 5th March, 2026 pursuant to Order 12 Rules 1, 3 and 6 Sub-Rules (1) & (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
- 2.That costs be awarded to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, to be borne by the plaintiffs from the two suits jointly and severally
- 3.That the matters be deemed as settled and the files closed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 159(1) and (2) of the Constitution; Sections 3 and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011; Section 101 of the Land Registration Act; Section 150 of the Land Act, No. 6 of 2012; Order 12 Rules 1, 3 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
- Consolidated with
- ELC No. E053 of 2025 – Mesalimu Badi Mohammed and others v Nassaro Bwanaule Nguvu and others
Relief refused
#The plaintiffs' claims for permanent injunction and declaration of bona fide proprietorship of LR No. 851/9 (CR 26610)
Suits dismissed for non-attendance by the plaintiffs on the hearing date
Costs
Costs awarded to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, to be borne by the plaintiffs from the two suits jointly and severally
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 the ELC No. E032 of 2024 and ELC E053 of 2025 be and are hereby dismissed for non-attendance by the Plaintifis herein during the hearing date, 5th March, 2026 pursuant to the provision of Order 12 Rules 1, 3 and 6 Sub – Rules (1) & (2) of the Court Procedure Rules 2010.
That costs to be awarded to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to be borne by the Plaintifis from the two suits – ELC No. E032 of 2024 and ELC No. E053 of 2025 jointly and severally thereof.
That the matter to be deemed as settled and the files CLOSED thereof.
I fully concurred with him that the suit belonged to the clients and not an advocate.
Where there is no attendance by the Plaintifis or the Defendant when the matter was called out outside the Court, the Honourable Court has discretion to dismiss a suit for non-attendance by any of the parties.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent suit numbers: the ruling refers variously to ELC No. E052 of 2025, ELC No. 032/2024 and ELC No. E032 of 2024 for what appear to be the two suits
Counsel's name rendered inconsistently as Alinyo and Aloyo
Order 12 quoted as 12(1) and 12(3) but labelled '(1) and (2)' in the body of the ruling
Land Registration Act cited as 'No. 3 of 2022' though elsewhere the Land Act is correctly cited as No. 6 of 2012
Mis-citation: 'Articles 159 (1) and (2) of Civil Procedure Rules 2010' - Article 159 is a constitutional provision, not a provision of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hassan & 12 others v National Bank of Kenya Limited & 2 others (Land Case E032 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1490 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC No. E032 of 2024 (with ELC No. E053 of 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1490/eng@2026-03-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.