Muinde v Muinde (Environment and Land Appeal 17 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 5780 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to reopen a land appeal, ruling that blaming your lawyer does not excuse missing court hearings in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ex parte judgment of 6th November 2023 should be set aside and the appeal re-heard
The application was dismissed; the Respondent failed to show sufficient cause under Order 42 Rule 23 for his absence and that of his advocate despite due service
Order 42 Rule 23 allows a respondent to an ex parte appeal to seek re-hearing if he shows lack of due service or sufficient cause. The court record showed the Respondent's counsel was served with numerous mention and hearing notices but failed to attend from 15th May 2020. No affidavit from the erstwhile advocate and no medical report substantiating claimed illness was furnished, and the application was filed two months after learning of the judgment, indicating delay and lack of interest rather than excusable mistake.
Legal principles established
#- Cases belong to litigants and not their advocates; blaming counsel is not a cure where the litigant was aware of the case and failed to pursue it
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated the 8th April, 2024 is dismissed with costs to the Appellant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rules 20, 21 and 23 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muinde v Muinde (Environment and Land Appeal 17 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 5780 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5780/eng@2024-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.