Mwangani v County Government of Kakamega (Environment and Planning Civil Case E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4125 (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 the applicant deserves the orders sought, namely the reopening of the plaintiff's suit for cross-examination and the reopening of the defendant's case
Key legal issues
#Whether the ex parte proceedings of 11th November 2025 should be set aside and the suit and defence reopened
Yes. Although counsel's medical excuse was a forgery and inexcusable, the defence raises triable issues and the defendant should be heard; prejudice to the plaintiff is met with thrown away costs payable personally by counsel.
The court applied Order 51 Rule 15 and Shah v Mbogo. The medical report from 'Victory Health Care – Ukunda' signed by one 'Luke Stanley' was not supported by any registration with the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council, and no rejoinder was offered; the court found it a forgery. Nevertheless, since the defence raised triable issues and public funds were at stake, the discretion favoured reopening, with the plaintiff compensated by thrown away costs.
Legal principles established
#- The discretion to set aside an ex parte order must be exercised judiciously, considering the regularity of the proceedings and whether the defence raises a triable defence
- A party whose liability may result in the use of public funds should ordinarily be afforded an opportunity to be heard where a triable defence exists, even where counsel's explanation for non-attendance is unexcusable, with prejudice addressed through thrown away costs
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 8th December 2025 is allowed
- 2.The plaintiff's case is reopened for purposes of the plaintiff's cross-examination by the defendant
- 3.The defendant's case is reopened to allow the defendant present its evidence in the matter
- 4.Mr. Vincent Kemosi Mogaka Advocate to pay the plaintiff thrown away costs of Kshs. 20,000/=
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
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.
I therefore allow the application dated 8th December 2025. The plaintifi’s case is hereby reopened for purposes of the plaintifi’s cross examination by the defendant and the defendant’s case is reopened to allow the defendant present its evidence in this matter.
I also order Mr. Vincent Kemosi Mogaka Advocate to pay a sum of Kshs. 20, 000/= to the plaintifi being thrown away costs.
The discretion to set aside an ex parte order must be exercised judiciously and not whimsically.
I am satisfied that the defence raises triable issues, and it will be in the interests of justice that the defendant is granted opportunity to be heard.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment recites an application dated 8th December 2025 but the supporting affidavit narrates illness 'on the morning of the hearing date of 11th November 2025', and the plaintiff's replying affidavit is dated 20th February 2026 and submissions 16th March 2026, i.e. after the application date but described consistently; the internal chronology of filings versus the hearing date appears compressed but is not internally contradictory on its face.
The medical report's alleged author and facility are found to be non-existent, yet the court still exercised discretion in the applicant's favour; this tension is acknowledged by the court itself, not a contradiction.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwangani v County Government of Kakamega (Environment and Planning Civil Case E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4125 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4125/eng@2026-07-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.