Omar (Suing as the Secretary and on Behalf of All Members of Nasib Farm Limited) v Tatu & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 640 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 3140 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court reinstated a dismissed land suit because the plaintiff's witnesses had actually travelled to Nairobi, but gave only 60 days to prosecute it.
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 ex parte orders of 9th June 2025 (dismissal of the suit for non-attendance) should be set aside
Key legal issues
#Whether sufficient cause was shown to set aside the dismissal of the suit for non-attendance
The court held that sufficient cause was demonstrated: the plaintiff's witnesses had travelled from Garissa to Nairobi for the hearing, and the application was made without inordinate delay, so the dismissal order was set aside and the suit reinstated.
The court applied Order 12 rule 7 and the inherent jurisdiction under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, read with the overriding objective in sections 1A and 1B. Although the transcript confirmed nobody was logged in at dismissal, the presence of the witnesses in Nairobi evidenced a genuine desire to prosecute the land matter. Weighing the right to be heard under Article 50(1), the court found no deliberate indolence justifying condemnation unheard.
Whether the court could interfere with a dismissal order made by another judge
The court held it had inherent powers to make orders necessary to meet the ends of justice notwithstanding the earlier dismissal order.
Relying on section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and the overriding objective in sections 1A and 1B, the court reasoned that its inherent power to prevent injustice and abuse of process allowed it to revisit the dismissal. Substantive justice requires parties to be heard on merit rather than condemned unheard, as captured in Article 50(1) of the Constitution.
Legal principles established
#- The setting aside of ex parte orders is discretionary and the test is whether sufficient cause has been shown
- The discretion to set aside is exercised to avoid injustice or hardship from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, not to assist deliberate obstruction
- Sufficient cause is a question of fact with no universal formula
Court orders
#- 1.The order dismissing the suit for non-attendance issued on the 9th June 2025 by Hon Lady Justice Judy Omange is hereby set aside
- 2.The suit is reinstated and the Applicant shall fully prosecute the reinstated suit within the next 60 days from the date of the ruling, failure to which the suit will stand automatically dismissed for want of prosecution, with costs to the Respondents
- 3.The costs of the Motion are awarded to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 12 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; sections 3A, 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 50(1) and 159 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Costs of the application to be in the cause
The court awarded the costs of the Motion to the Respondents instead of leaving them in the cause as sought
Costs
The costs of the Motion are awarded to the Respondents; if the reinstated suit is not prosecuted within 60 days, it will stand automatically dismissed for want of prosecution, with costs to the Respondents.
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.
The order dismissing the suit for non-attendance issued on the 9th June 2025 by Hon Lady Justice Judy Omange is hereby set aside.
The suit is hereby reinstated and the Applicant shall fully prosecute the reinstated suit within the next 60 days from the date of this ruling, failure to which the suit will stand automatically dismissed for want of prosecution, with costs to the Respondents.
The costs of the Motion are awarded to the Respondents.
It therefore follows that every person ought not to be shut out from accessing court or having his day in court.
Suficient cause is thus the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Suficient cause is a question of fact and the court has to exercise its discretion in the varied and special circumstances in the case at hand.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case/suit number or the name of the respondent party; the caption is only identifiable through the motion date and deponents
The deponent of the supporting affidavit is named 'Jared Nyaoke' while the applicant is referred to as 'the plaintifi'; the same name appears in the body rather than in a formal caption
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omar (Suing as the Secretary and on Behalf of All Members of Nasib Farm Limited) v Tatu & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 640 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 3140 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 6th June 2025 (suit number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3140/eng@2026-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.