Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNotice of Motion Application dated 19/08/2024· [2025] KEELC 3782 (KLR)

Wafula & 6 others v Sichangi & 23 others (Environment & Land Case E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3782 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 May 2025
ECE. C. CHERONO
1,200 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Bungoma struck out a land dispute application for being unclear, defective and unsupported by a proper case, awarding costs to the 24 respondents.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Bungoma (E.C. Cherono, ELC Judge, delivered 8 May 2025) determined a Notice of Motion dated 19/08/2024 described as an originating motion filed by the Applicants under Article 22(1) and 2(a-c) of the Constitution and Sections 5 to 8 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Applicants sought ex parte orders including access to court, consolidation with Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2012 (ELCA No. 2 of 2017), vesting orders directing the ELC registry to extract and issue practice directions earlier granted by Mabeya, Mukunya and Olao JJ., declarations that certain registry orders were mere abeyance orders, an injunction restraining the 1st to 24th Respondents from planting sugarcane on or damaging LR No. Ndivisi/Muchi/661 and its resultant subdivisions pending determination of CMCC No. 57 of 2010, and costs. The 4th Respondent opposed through grounds of opposition, contending that he was never a party to the referenced proceedings, having only acted as advocate for his client. The court framed a single issue: whether the application was merited. It held the originating motion, supported by an unknown form of supplementary affidavit and premised on irrelevant provisions, was verbose, ambiguous and incoherent; no causal link with the other proceedings was shown, no cause of action against the Respondents was explained, and no substantive suit accompanied the application. Invoking Section 1A of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159(2)(d), the court nonetheless proceeded to the merits despite the irregularities, found the application defective and without merit, and struck it out with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the originating motion was properly before the court and merited

Holding

The application was defective and without merit and was struck out

Reasoning

The court found the originating motion, supported by a supplementary affidavit, to be unknown in law and premised on irrelevant provisions. The grounds were verbose and ambiguous, depositions incoherent, no causal link established with the other proceedings referred to, no cause of action explained, no substantive suit accompanied the application, and annexures did not clarify the reliefs.

p. 4
02

Whether procedural irregularities should bar determination on the merits

Holding

No - the court proceeded to the merits notwithstanding irregularities

Reasoning

Invoking the overriding objective under Section 1A of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, the court held itself mandated to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities, and therefore determined the application on its merits despite describing it as unknown in law.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may disregard procedural irregularities in pleadings in favour of determining substantive merits under the overriding objective
  • An application lacking a substantive suit, coherence and a causal link to the reliefs sought is defective and may be struck out

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The entire application is struck out with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 22(1) & 2(a-c); Article 159(2)(d)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 5, 6, 7, 8, 79
  • Civil Procedure RulesRules made thereunder (general reference)
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 22 Clauses 1 & 2(a-c) of the Constitution, 2010 and Sections 5 to 8 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wafula & 6 others v Sichangi & 23 others (Environment & Land Case E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3782 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion Application dated 19/08/2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3782/eng@2025-05-08

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