Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 1385 (KLR)

Lekooro (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Takan Lekooro alias Tukan Lekooro (Deceased) & 6 others v Suguta Marmar 'A' Group Ranch through Suruan - Chairman, Lekukuu - Treasurer & Lekinasia Secretary & 9 others (Environment & Land Petition 01 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 1385 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 March 2025
LMLUCY N. MBUGUA
1,000 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

#

A Kenyan land court refused a late request to visit disputed land, ruling that litigants must raise scene visits at pretrial, not during trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nanyuki (Lucy N. Mbugua, J) delivered on 20 March 2025 in a land dispute filed on 15 March 2021. At a hearing adjourned from 25 February 2025, counsel for the Petitioners, one of whom is 80 years old, applied for the court to visit the suit land to see how the Petitioners' homes and those of the 10th Respondent are positioned on the ground. The 10th Respondent opposed, relying on a status report prepared by the land adjudication officer and contending that all delays had been caused by the Petitioners. The 1st Respondent also objected, arguing the matter was old, that developments had changed since the handover in 2021, that the handover report was what mattered, and that the application was a delay tactic after more than four pretrials at which a scene visit was never raised. The court noted the numerous pretrial directions dating back to 8 February 2022 at which the Petitioners never sought a scene visit despite disclosing their client's age. Applying Methuselar Keyah Lubembe v Albina Kipkemoi [2019] eKLR on case conferences under Order 11, and Parkire Stephen Munkasio v Kedong Ranch Limited [2015] eKLR as cited in Beatrice Ngonyo Ndungu v Samuel K. Kanyoro [2017] eKLR, the court held that litigants must place material before the court and that the court is not mandated to conduct a fact-finding mission. Noting that land use changes over time and that a status report and photographs were already on record, the court declined the scene visit and directed the matter to proceed to trial. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should conduct a scene visit at trial stage

Holding

Application declined; the request should have been raised at pretrial and the court will not conduct a fact-finding mission at this stage.

Reasoning

The suit, filed on 15 March 2021, had undergone numerous pretrial directions since 8 February 2022 without the Petitioners ever seeking a scene visit, despite informing the court their client was elderly. A status report by the land adjudication officer and photographs from both parties were already on record. Land use can change over time, so a visit now would not give a clear picture. The overriding objective under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 11 and Article 159(2) requires such issues to be raised early.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Issues such as a scene visit ought to be raised at the pretrial/conference stage in line with the overriding objective
  • It is the duty of litigants to place material in support of their case; the court is not mandated to go on a fact-finding mission

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for the court to visit the scene is declined
  2. 2.The matter is to proceed to trial

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A and 1B
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Methuselar Keyah Lubembe vs Albina Kipkemoi
    [2019] eKLR
  • Parkire Stephen Munkasio & 14 others (suing on their own behalf and behalf of their families and all the members of the maasai community living on land reference no.8396 ( i.r 11977) situated in kedong) v Kedong Ranch Limited & 8 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Beatrice Ngonyo Ndungu & another v Samuel K. Kanyoro & 2 others
    [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; matter heard under the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159(2) of the 2010 Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lekooro (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Takan Lekooro alias Tukan Lekooro (Deceased) & 6 others v Suguta Marmar 'A' Group Ranch through Suruan - Chairman, Lekukuu - Treasurer & Lekinasia Secretary & 9 others (Environment & Land Petition 01 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 1385 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1385/eng@2025-03-20

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