Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC 297 of 2017 (Notice of Motion dated 13th October, 2023)· [2025] KEELC 3524 (KLR)

King’ola v Maweu & 5 others (Environment & Land Case 297 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 3524 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 May 2025
EOE. O. Obaga
1,427 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

#

A Makueni court refused to undo an ex parte taxation because the litigant's own delay and conduct showed he was obstructing justice, not genuinely prevented from attending.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff/Applicant moved the court by notice of motion dated 13th October, 2023 seeking setting aside of a Bill of Costs taxed exparte on 24th October, 2022, a fresh taxation, and costs. The underlying suit, originally Milimani ELC No. 818 of 2013, was transferred successively to Machakos ELC No. 2 of 2015 and then Makueni ELC No. 297 of 2017, and was withdrawn on 10th February, 2020 with costs to the Defendants. The Defendants filed their Bill of Costs on 23rd September, 2022; service was effected on the Applicant's advocates by email and, on the court record, on the Applicant. The bill was taxed exparte, a notice to show cause issued, and warrants of arrest followed on 5th October, 2023. The Applicant blamed the non-attendance on the misplacement of the email by his advocate's office and claimed he was unwell, invoking the principle that a litigant should not suffer for his counsel's mistakes, relying on Martha Wangari Karua v IEBC, P.M.M. v J.N.W. and Ham v SOS. The Respondents opposed, contending service was properly effected on the advocate on record and criticising the Applicant's delay and the framing of the application. The court framed a single issue: whether sufficient cause prevented the Applicant from attending court. It found the Applicant undeserving of discretion, noting his personal service, his inconsistent conduct, the lack of urgency, and his year-long delay in filing submissions while enjoying a stay of warrants. The application was dismissed with costs to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether sufficient cause was shown for non-attendance at taxation and notice to show cause

Holding

No sufficient cause was demonstrated; service was effected on the Applicant's advocates and on the Applicant himself, and the Applicant's conduct in delaying the application disentitled him to the court's discretion

Reasoning

The Applicant's advocates were served with the bill of costs by email and claimed it was misplaced in their office; the Applicant personally was served with the notice to show cause but did not attend, claiming illness. The court found he could attend his lawyer's office but not court, filed the application without urgency, and delayed filing submissions for over a year, indicating an obstructionist litigant unworthy of discretion.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The court will not exercise its discretion to set aside exparte proceedings in favour of a litigant whose conduct obstructs the course of justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicant's application dated 13th October, 2023 dismissed with costs to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the court to set aside exparte taxation and warrants of arrest (unspecified provisions in the notice of motion)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "King’ola v Maweu & 5 others (Environment & Land Case 297 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 3524 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC 297 of 2017 (Notice of Motion dated 13th October, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3524/eng@2025-05-05

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