Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedEnvironment and Land Case (Originating Summons dated 7th July, 2023)· [2025] KEELC 3598 (KLR)

Kairo & 2 others (Suing as the Administrators of the Estate of Simon Thuo Kairo - Deceased) v Aberdare Estates Limited (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 6 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 3598 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 May 2025
2,334 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court reinstated a land suit dismissed after a mix-up between two law firms, prioritising the right to be heard over punishing a mistake.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 4th December, 2024, brought under Sections 1A, 3A and Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, sought setting aside of orders dismissing their suit for non-attendance on 24th July, 2024, and reinstatement for hearing. The underlying Originating Summons dated 7th July, 2023 sought a declaration under Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act that the Plaintiffs were entitled to be registered as absolute proprietors of land parcel 10XX5/5-26 by adverse possession. Githui John, an advocate instructed alongside Kennedy Kangethe Mwaniki Advocates, deponed that non-attendance resulted from a miscommunication between the two firms, each assuming the other would attend. The Respondent opposed, noting the hearing date had been taken by consent, its witnesses were present, no Plaintiff attended or explained their absence, and the application was delayed and an afterthought. The court framed a single issue: whether the application was merited. Relying on Shah v Mbogo, Muthaiga Road Trust Company Ltd v Five Continents Stationers Ltd and Philip Chemwolo v Augustine Kubende, the court held its discretion was wide and directed at avoiding injustice from inadvertence or excusable mistake, not at imposing discipline. Finding the explanation plausible and no demonstrated prejudice to the Respondent, the court allowed the application with no costs, set aside the dismissal orders of 24th July, 2024, and reinstated the suit for hearing on merit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether sufficient cause was shown to warrant setting aside the dismissal of the suit for non-attendance under Order 12 Rule 7

Holding

The application was allowed; the miscommunication between two firms of advocates on record was a plausible, inadvertent mistake, and no prejudice to the Respondent was demonstrated.

Reasoning

The court invoked its wide and unfettered discretion under Order 12 Rule 7, guided by Shah v Mbogo: the discretion exists to avoid injustice from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, not to assist deliberate obstruction. The explanation of crossed communication between the two law firms was found plausible; the Respondent did not demonstrate the loss it would suffer. Costs could compensate any loss.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The court should not be in a rush to remove a litigant from the seat of justice; denial of the right to be heard should be the last resort.
  • In setting aside ex parte orders, the main concern of the court is to do justice to the parties without fettering its wide discretion.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 4th December, 2024 is allowed with no costs
  2. 2.The dismissal orders of 24th July, 2024 are set aside
  3. 3.The Plaintiffs' suit is reinstated for hearing and determination on merit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesSection 1A
  • Civil Procedure RulesSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 12 rule 7
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 12 Rule 3(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 38

Cases cited (5)

  • Shah v Mbogo and Another
    [1967] EA 116
  • James Kanyiita Nderitu & another v Marios Philotas Ghikas & another
    [2016] KECA 470 (KLR)
  • Githui v Thiongo & 2 others
    (Environment & Land Case E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 574 (KLR)
  • Muthaiga Road Trust Company Ltd vs Five Continents Stationers Ltd & 25 Others
    (2003) KLR 714
  • Philip Chemowolo & Another v Augustine Kubende
    [1982-88] 1 KAR 103
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 3A and Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kairo & 2 others (Suing as the Administrators of the Estate of Simon Thuo Kairo - Deceased) v Aberdare Estates Limited (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 6 of 2024)  (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 3598 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Environment and Land Case (Originating Summons dated 7th July, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3598/eng@2025-05-08

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