Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2024] KEELC 6375 (KLR)

Nduruhu & another v Okeja & another (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 235 of 2011) [2024] KEELC 6375 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 September 2024
1,137 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to undo a judgment against a defendant who repeatedly skipped hearings and squandered his chances to be heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st Defendant filed a Notice of Motion dated 20.2.2024, seven months after judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs on 13.7.2023, seeking stay of execution, a temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiffs from carrying away, moving, selling or auctioning his goods, setting aside of the judgment, deeming of his statement of defence as properly on record, and a fresh hearing. He argued he was not served with the hearing notice and should not be condemned unheard, relying on authorities including Belinda Murai v Amos Wainaina. The Plaintiffs opposed, relying on the court record: the 1st Defendant had earlier failed to attend a hearing on 21.9.2021, obtained a set-aside by paying throwaway costs of Kshs. 10,000, secured a consented adjournment marked as a last adjournment, and again failed to appear on 5.6.2023 when judgment date was fixed. On 13.7.2023 his counsel was present and obtained a 30-day stay. The court framed three issues: setting aside of the judgment, stay, and injunction. Applying its own prior statement in Moschion v Mwangi that a party is only entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the court held the 1st Defendant had driven himself away from the seat of justice and squandered his chances; the judgment was procedural and no sufficient reasons warranted setting it aside. The stay and injunction prayers were spent, and the application was dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs on 26 September 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ex-parte judgment of 13.7.2023 should be set aside

Holding

The judgment was procedural; the 1st Defendant had been given ample opportunity to be heard, including a prior compromised set-aside application, a consented last adjournment, and counsel's appearance at judgment seeking 30 days' stay, and no sufficient cause was shown to set it aside.

Reasoning

The court traced the record: the 1st Defendant was represented, filed a defence, failed to appear at the 21.9.2021 hearing, obtained a set-aside on payment of throwaway costs, was granted a consented adjournment marked as last, and again failed to appear on 5.6.2023. At judgment delivery his counsel appeared and sought 30 days' stay. He therefore drove himself from the seat of justice and the judgment was regular.

p. 3
02

Whether stay of execution and temporary injunction should issue

Holding

Both prayers are spent and unmerited since the judgment was not set aside; the application was dismissed with costs.

Reasoning

Having declined to set aside the judgment, the court found that the consequential prayers for stay of execution and temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiffs from attaching the 1st Defendant's goods fell away. The application dated 20.2.2024 was accordingly found unmerited and dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party is only entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be heard; the right to be heard does not avail a party who squanders the opportunities given

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 20.2.2024 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit and the 1st Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 20.2.2024 (provisions not stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nduruhu & another v Okeja & another (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 235 of 2011) [2024] KEELC 6375 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6375/eng@2024-09-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.