Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2024] KEELC 6591 (KLR)

GA Life Assurance Limited v St Elizabeth Academy-Karen Limited (Environment & Land Case 715 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 6591 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 October 2024
LMLucy N. Mbugua
902 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to set aside a two-year-old judgment, ruling that litigants—not their advocates—must actively follow up on their own cases.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Lucy N. Mbugua J) on the Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 29.1.2024 seeking leave for a new advocate to come on record, a stay of execution, and setting aside of a judgment delivered on 9.6.2022. The application was supported by the affidavit of Ann Wanjiku Wado, a director of the defendant, who contended that the defence case was marked closed on 25.4.2022 after counsel holding brief indicated the defendant's witness could not attend, and that the defendants were never informed of the hearing date; they blamed their erstwhile advocates and had lodged a complaint with the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal. The plaintiff opposed through a preliminary objection and replying affidavit of Shania Mukani, arguing that although the substantive relief sought was setting aside, the law invoked was review under Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and no grounds under that rule were pleaded, and that the defendant had at all material times been represented by Mathenge Wambugu & Co. advocates. The court held that no sufficient grounds for review were established: a litigant must keep track of their case and cannot simply blame the advocate; the defendant never denied Mathenge Wambugu were on record and showed no steps taken to follow the suit. Judgment had been delivered two years earlier and the applicant only discovered it in January 2024, showing lethargic conduct. The prayer for review was disallowed and stay of execution fell with it. Only prayer 2, allowing the new advocate on record, was granted, with costs of the application to the plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether sufficient grounds for review under Order 45 rule 1 were established

Holding

The prayer for review was unmerited; the applicant failed to show sufficient reason, diligence, or excusable inaction

Reasoning

The applicant blamed its erstwhile advocates for the failure to attend the hearing, but never denied that Mathenge Wambugu & Co. advocates were on record and had prosecuted interlocutory applications. The court held that litigation belongs to the litigant, who must keep track of the matter. Judgment had been delivered in June 2022 and the applicant only discovered it in January 2024, evidencing lethargic conduct. Inaction of this kind is not excusable.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A litigant bears responsibility for following up on the progress of their case and cannot simply blame their advocate

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 29.1.2024 is dismissed save prayer 2 (allowing the new advocate to come on record) which is allowed
  2. 2.The prayer for review of the judgment is disallowed
  3. 3.The prayer for stay of execution falls with the review
  4. 4.The respondent/plaintiff shall have costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Actoverriding objective (referred to generally)

Cases cited (3)

  • Mwangi Gachiengu & 2 Others –Vs- Mwaura Githuku & Another
    [2019] eKLR
  • Moschion v Mwangi
    (Environment & Land Case 350 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 17144 (KLR) (27 April 2023) (Ruling)
  • Nginyanga Kavole vs. Mailu Gideon
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over its suit; application brought under Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "GA Life Assurance Limited v St Elizabeth Academy-Karen Limited (Environment & Land Case 715 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 6591 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6591/eng@2024-10-03

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