Matoi v Kimau & another (Environment & Land Case E014 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 712 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court set aside a ruling made without hearing landowners, confirming no one can lose a case they were never told about.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants established grounds for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Although the Applicants failed to demonstrate discovery of new and important matter or an error apparent on the face of the record, they demonstrated sufficient reason - denial of the right to be heard - and the application was filed without unreasonable delay, warranting review.
The court set out the three limbs of review: discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, and any other sufficient reason. The Applicants failed on the first two limbs, having shown no new evidence and pinpointed no facial error. However, their claim that they were never served with the application seeking reinstatement of the suit engaged the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 50 and the rule that no one shall be condemned unheard. The court found no prejudice to the Respondent in rehearing the matter and found sufficient reason established. The application, filed on 8th May 2024 after the 29th April 2024 ruling, was also made without unreasonable delay.
Whether the Applicants were denied an opportunity to be heard
Yes - the Applicants admitted service of a hearing notice but denied service of the application itself; the ex parte proceeding deprived them of the right to be heard.
The Applicants contended they were never served with the application seeking to reinstate the suit, which was heard and determined ex parte on 29th April 2024. The court invoked Article 50 of the Constitution and the natural justice rule against condemning a party unheard, holding the right to fair hearing to be fundamental. It found that no prejudice would be occasioned to the Respondent if the matter were heard on merit, and that denying a party who has expressed the desire to be heard the chance to defend his case would be unjust and a miscarriage of justice.
Legal principles established
#- The right to a fair hearing is a fundamental human right and no party shall be condemned unheard
- Sufficient reason for review includes a denial of the opportunity to be heard, and it is a miscarriage of justice to deny a party who wishes to be heard that opportunity
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling delivered on 29/04/2024 be and is hereby set aside
- 2.The Respondent is directed to serve upon the Applicants the application which gave rise to the ruling dated 29/04/2024
- 3.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 159(2) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 18 Rules 10 and 11, Order 45 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Matoi v Kimau & another (Environment & Land Case E014 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 712 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Environment & Land Case E014 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/712/eng@2025-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.