Steyn v Nsense (Environment & Land Case E002 & E008 of 2022 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 3693 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an application filed by counsel not formally on record should be struck out
The application was properly before the court since the Respondent had been servicing pleadings on the firm and counsel had been acting for the Defendant; striking out would not serve justice, but counsel was ordered to regularise her status within 7 days.
The Court Tracking System showed the application was filed by E Valerie Advocates although the notice of change of advocates on record indicated Kilomenn Advocates. However, the court record showed Ms. Valerie Mong'are had been acting for the Defendant since April 2023 with the knowledge of the Respondent, who had been serving pleadings on her firm. Striking out would therefore not be in the interest of justice.
Whether the Defendant's case should be reopened for the Land Registrar's testimony
The court reluctantly allowed the reopening and set aside the order closing the defence case, but noted the discretion must be exercised cautiously.
Although the court found the Registrar's evidence not strictly indispensable - the Registrar could testify only to the veracity and authenticity of records held, not the type of tenancy between the parties - and despite the Applicant's history of adjournments and non-attendance, the court invoked its discretion and the fair-trial guarantee under Article 50 to allow reopening, with the Plaintiff also at liberty to adduce further evidence.
Whether the Registrar's proposed evidence was new, crucial evidence
The court found it was not: the entries of the land register were not in dispute, and the nature of the parties' tenancy was not a matter on which the Registrar could testify.
The court reasoned that a Land Registrar can only speak to documents issued by their office and records held, not to the intention of the parties or the type of tenancy entered into. That issue could be determined on the evidence already on record, so the proposed evidence would not cause the prejudice alleged.
Legal principles established
#- Courts have discretion to reopen a case, but it must be exercised judiciously and only on cogent reasons
- Reopening requires exceptional circumstances including evidence of genuine efforts to secure the witness and explanation for prior failures
Court orders
#- 1.The ex-parte proceedings of 6th March 2024 that led to the close of the Defence case are set aside.
- 2.The Defendant/Applicant do reopen his case and the Land Registrar Kajiado North be allowed to testify and produce documentary evidence.
- 3.The Plaintiff be at liberty to reopen his case and adduce further evidence if need be.
- 4.Costs of the application be borne by the Defendant/Applicant.
- 5.Counsel for the Applicant/Defendant to regularise their status on record within 7 days of the Ruling.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Njambi v Waweru (Environment and Land Case 719 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 6634 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6634 (KLR)2 Oct 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Steyn v Nsense (Environment & Land Case E002 & E008 of 2022 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 3693 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3693/eng@2025-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.