Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 687 (KLR)

Adala v Omaya & 4 others (Environment & Land Case E004 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 687 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court, High Court of Kenya
20 February 2025
1,483 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Siaya determines the 1st Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 30th September 2024, which sought to set aside orders of 26th September 2024 dismissing the 1st Defendant's application dated 4th July 2024 for want of prosecution, and to reinstate that application for hearing on its merits. Counsel for the applicant, Maxwell O. Ogonda, deponed that he attempted to attend the virtual hearing of 26th September 2024 but his call dropped due to internet fluctuation and a power outage, and that he sought readmission through the Siaya High Court forum. The plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Agina, filed no response despite being served and given an opportunity, so the application was unopposed. The court, however, subjected it to a merit review under Order 10 Rule 11, Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. Relying on the Langat decision on the obligations of parties facing virtual-platform failures, the court noted the annexed WhatsApp conversation was missing from the record but treated this as an oversight. Perusal of the court record confirmed a power outage, and the court gave counsel the benefit of the doubt. No prejudice was shown by the respondent, and the reinstated application concerns a stay of execution of the court's judgment pending appeal. The court found the application merited, allowed it in terms of prayers 1 and 2, and directed that costs abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the dismissal of the 1st Defendant's application dated 4th July 2024 for want of prosecution on 26th September 2024 should be set aside where counsel cited internet fluctuation and a power outage

Holding

The application was merited; the dismissal orders were set aside and the application dated 4th July 2024 reinstated for hearing on the merits.

Reasoning

The court reviewed the record and confirmed there was a power outage on 26/9/2024, with court sitting in chambers and counsel for the plaintiff suffering audio problems. Given the confirmed power outage, the court gave counsel the benefit of the doubt. The respondent filed no response and identified no prejudice. The dismissed application sought a stay of execution pending appeal, and the court found the lower risk of injustice lay in hearing the application on its merits.

p. 3
02

Whether an unopposed reinstatement application must still be justified on its merits

Holding

Yes; even where unopposed, the application must be subjected to a merit review.

Reasoning

The court noted the application was unopposed because the respondent, though served and given time, filed no response or submissions. The court nevertheless declined to allow it merely by default and instead examined the merits under Order 10 Rule 11, Order 12 Rule 7 and the overriding objective, considering the reasonableness of the grounds and the absence of demonstrated prejudice.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where judgment or an order has been entered under Order 10, the court may set aside or vary it and any consequential decree or order upon such terms as are just.
  • In setting aside a dismissal the court must consider whether the grounds are reasonable and whether any prejudice will be caused to the adverse party as well as to the applicant.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The orders issued on 26th September 2024 dismissing the 1st Defendant's application dated 4th July 2024 for want of prosecution are set aside
  2. 2.The 1st Defendant's application dated 4th July 2024 is reinstated for hearing and determination on its merits
  3. 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction and case-management provisions: Order 10 Rule 11 and Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Adala v Omaya & 4 others (Environment & Land Case E004 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 687 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/687/eng@2025-02-20

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