Makongo & another v Musinde & another (Environment and Land Case 400 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 3909 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed an application to set aside virtual hearing orders, ruling that claims of being denied entry to online hearings can amount to abuse of process.
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 applicant deserves the orders sought in the notice of motion dated 7th October 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant deserved orders setting aside the proceedings and orders of 24th September 2025 and reinstating the application dated 26th June 2025
The application was dismissed as unnecessary and an abuse of the court process
The applicant's advocate claimed he was not admitted to the court's virtual platform on 24th September 2025, but the court found this misleading since admission to its virtual platform is automatic and counsel merely needed to log in through a public link. Further, the court did not dismiss the application dated 26th June 2025; it ordered filing and exchange of submissions and slated a mention for 19th January 2026. That application remains unprosecuted, so there was nothing to reinstate.
Legal principles established
#- The court has power and discretion under Order 51 Rule 15 to set aside ex parte orders, to be exercised judiciously
- Applications that are unnecessary and without factual foundation constitute an abuse of the court process and will be dismissed
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 7th October 2025 is dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 51 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules (power to set aside ex parte orders)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the proceedings and orders made on 24/09/2025 and reinstating the application dated 26th June 2025 for hearing on merits with leave to the respondent to file a response
The court found the assertion that counsel was denied admission to the virtual platform misleading, as admission is automatic, and noted that the court did not dismiss the application dated 26th June 2025, which remains unprosecuted; the application was therefore unnecessary and an abuse of process
Costs of the application
The application having been dismissed, no costs order in the applicant's favour was made; no express costs order appears in the final orders
Costs
No costs order made; the court simply dismissed the application and stated 'It is so ordered.'
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.
This court has power and discretion under the provisions of 0rder 51 Rule 15 to set aside ex parte orders. Such discretion ought to be exercised judiciously.
For the above reasons, the application dated 7th October 2025 was unnecessary and the same is an abuse of the court process. The same is hereby dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The court and the case number are not stated anywhere in the judgment; only the delivery venue 'AT KAKAMEGA' and the judge's name appear
The judgment date reads 17th June 2026 while the proceedings concern directions given on 24th September 2025 with a mention slated for 19th January 2026; no mention outcome is recorded before the judgment of 2026
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Makongo & another v Musinde & another (Environment and Land Case 400 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 3909 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3909/eng@2026-06-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.