Farah & 2 others v Adan (Environment and Land Case E131 & E136 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 1582 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether proceedings herein should be re-opened to allow the Defendant to adduce evidence in respect to issues raised in his amended defence
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court should re-open proceedings to allow the Defendant to be heard on his amended defence
The application for re-opening was refused because the amended defence raised only the question of jurisdiction, a pure point of law already canvassed in submissions, and the Defendant had squandered earlier opportunities to testify and offered no plausible reason for the re-opening.
The Court applied the guidance in Samuel Kiti Lewa and Hannah Wairimu Ngethe that re-opening is discretionary, must be exercised judiciously, and should not be used to fill gaps in evidence or follow inordinate and unexplained delay. It also applied the Supreme Court's Mohamed Abdi Mahamud criteria for additional evidence, including reasonable diligence. The amendments raised only jurisdiction, which the Court could resolve without further evidence; a previous ruling by Justice Omange on 18th December 2024 had already declined re-opening. Submissions had been highlighted on 24th March 2025 and only judgment remained.
Legal principles established
#- Re-opening of a closed case is discretionary, must be exercised judiciously, and will not be allowed where intended to fill gaps in evidence or defeated by inordinate and unexplained delay
- A challenge to jurisdiction is a pure point of law that can be raised in submissions and does not require re-opening of proceedings or additional evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 6th February 2026 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; not expressly cited (Article 50 of the Constitution raised by the Defendant on the right to be heard)
Relief refused
#Prayer to re-open the proceedings to accommodate the facts in the Defendant's amended defence
The amendments raised only the question of the Court's jurisdiction, a pure point of law not requiring additional evidence; the Defendant had squandered opportunities to be heard and gave no plausible reason for re-opening a fully heard case
Prayer to complete the record by incorporating the amended defence
Fell with the main prayer; the Court found the amendments concerned jurisdiction only and did not warrant re-opening proceedings already heard
Costs of the application
Application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs
Costs
The Notice of Motion application is dismissed with costs (costs to the Plaintiffs).
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.
In the foregoing, I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will dismiss it with costs.
re-opening of a case should not be allowed where it is intended to fill gaps in evidence. Also such prayer for re-opening of the case will be defeated by inordinate and unexplained delay.
the Defendant has not provided plausible reasons to allow the Court reopen this case and I will decline to so.
since the amendments introduced by the Defendant are only on jurisdiction of this Court, it does not warrant reopening of the proceedings which has been heard and the only issue remaining is the delivery of judgement.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number and full title of the cause are not stated in the judgment extract; the parties are referred to only as 'Plaintiffs' and 'Defendant'.
The judgment refers to 'Plaintiffs' (plural, with a 3rd Plaintiff) but the application and orders speak of a single Defendant; the exact number of Plaintiffs is not stated on the face of the extract.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Farah & 2 others v Adan (Environment and Land Case E131 & E136 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 1582 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1582/eng@2026-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.