Muriuki v Muriuki & another (Civil Application E135 of 2023) [2025] KECA 1729 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to decide a self-represented appellant's application because he couldn't prove he served it on the other side, and ordered it relisted for a fresh hearing.
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 motion dated 4th October 2024 seeking leave to amend the Memorandum of Appeal could proceed in the absence of responses from the respondents and proof of service upon them
Key legal issues
#Whether the ex parte application for leave to amend the Memorandum of Appeal should be determined despite the absence of responses and proof of service
The single judge declined to determine the motion and directed that it be relisted afresh by the registry, since there were no responses from the respondents and no proof of service of the motion upon them.
The judge noted that the applicant was in person and that, although the hearing notice had been served on the parties by email on 26th September 2025, the respondents filed no responses. More significantly, there was no proof of service of the motion itself dated 4th October 2024. In those circumstances the judge considered that the motion could not properly be taken out and determined, and the appropriate course was to have the motion relisted afresh by the registry for inter partes hearing.
Legal principles established
#- Where an application is unprosecuted for want of responses and want of proof of service, the court may direct that it be relisted afresh rather than determine or dismiss it on the papers
Court orders
#- 1.The motion to be relisted afresh by the registry
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Nairobi ELC Suit No. 35 of 2018 (OS)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over applications for leave to amend a Memorandum of Appeal (no specific provision stated in the order)
Relief refused
#Hearing and determination of the application for leave to amend the Memorandum of Appeal
No responses were filed by the respondents and there was no proof of service of the motion dated 4th October 2024 upon them
Costs
No costs order was made in the order.
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 absence of responses from the respondents and in absence of proof of service of the motion dated 4th October 2024, upon the respondents, I have no option but to take it out.
The motion to be relisted afresh by the registry.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is a single-paragraph procedural order made upon perusal of the record, not a reasoned appellate judgment; it decides nothing on the merits of the underlying land dispute or the proposed amendment
The coram name is printed inconsistently in the judgment: the cause list reads 'F SICHALE' while the signature block reads 'F. SICHALE'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muriuki v Muriuki & another (Civil Application E135 of 2023) [2025] KECA 1729 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application E135 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1729/eng@2025-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.