Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment (application dated 15th December 2025)· [2026] KEELC 1674 (KLR)

Raymond & another v Attorney General & others (Environment and Land Case 46 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1674 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 March 2026
MNMwangi Njoroge
701 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Malindi reinstated a land suit dismissed for want of prosecution, ruling that prompt, well-evidenced applications deserve a hearing on the merits.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Malindi by Mwangi Njoroge, J, on a Notice of Motion dated 15th December 2025 seeking to set aside orders of 10th December 2025 dismissing the suit for want of prosecution and to reinstate it for hearing on the merits. The application was supported by the affidavit of Mburu Kariuki, advocate, who explained that the Attorney General had on 9th December 2025 emailed that counsel with conduct of the matter was unavailable, that the plaintiff's witnesses were to travel from Lamu and were told not to travel, and that counsel who was handling the matter was unwell on the material day; Mr. Mburu stepped in only to learn the suit had been dismissed. The application was filed the same day as the dismissal and was therefore timeously lodged. Only the 4th defendant opposed, contending the application was vexatious and that there was no arguable suit as it was statutorily time barred, challenging a process of 9th February 1995, and did not meet the threshold of Sections 79 and 80 of the Land Registration Act 2012. The court held that its discretion to set aside its orders is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, that promptitude and supporting evidence govern such applications, and that the 4th defendant's grounds 3 and 4 went to the substance of the case and could not be tried at an interlocutory stage. The application was allowed in terms of prayer 2, with costs in the cause, and the suit was directed to be mentioned on 26th May 2026 for fixing a fresh hearing date.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit dismissed for want of prosecution should be reinstated

Holding

The application was timeously filed on the same day as the dismissal, the applicant explained the absence of counsel (unwell counsel, AG's email of unavailability, witnesses travelling from Lamu), and the 4th defendant's substantive objections could not be tried interlocutorily, so the application was allowed in terms of prayer 2.

Reasoning

The court held that the discretion to set aside orders is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously; promptitude and supporting evidence determine the outcome. The application was lodged on the same day as the dismissal. The affidavit explained that the Attorney General's email of 9th December 2025 and counsel's illness caused the non-attendance. The 4th defendant's grounds 3 and 4 raised substantive issues (limitation; Sections 79 and 80 of the Land Registration Act) not triable at the interlocutory stage, leaving the court with the option of granting the application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The discretion to set aside the court's orders is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, with promptitude and supporting evidence being determinative.
  • Objections going to the substance of a case (e.g. limitation) cannot be tried at an interlocutory reinstatement stage.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 15th December 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer number 2 thereof (reinstatement of the suit dismissed for want of prosecution)
  2. 2.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
  3. 3.The suit shall be mentioned on 26th May 2026 for the fixing of a fresh hearing date convenient to all parties

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSections 79 and 80
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion of the court to set aside its own orders dismissing a suit for want of prosecution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Raymond & another v Attorney General & others (Environment and Land Case 46 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1674 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 15th December 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1674/eng@2026-03-17

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.