City Manager, County Government of Kenya & 3 others v Manyala & 3 others (Suing as Members of Kibuye Traders) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3854 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out an attempt to reverse conservatory orders through a fresh application, insisting such requests must be filed in the original case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8th May 2025 should be upheld
- 2.Whether a Miscellaneous application is a proper vehicle to set aside conservatory orders issued in a different cause (ELC Petition E002 of 2025)
Key legal issues
#Whether conservatory orders issued in an existing petition may be set aside through a fresh Miscellaneous application
No. Such an application must be brought in the existing cause; a Miscellaneous application for that purpose is un-procedural and improperly before the court.
The court found it undisputed that a petition between the same parties over the same subject matter existed and that the orders sought to be reviewed were issued in that petition. The applicant's excuse that time was short was rejected because instituting a new matter takes more time than filing within the existing matter. Entertaining the application in a separate cause would invite chaos in the administration of justice.
Whether the applicant's explanation (urgency/time constraints) justified bypassing prescribed procedures
The explanation was unsatisfactory; urgency does not excuse non-compliance with established procedures.
The applicant claimed time was not on its side, but the court reasoned that filing in the existing petition would have taken less time than instituting a new miscellaneous matter. Article 159(2) of the Constitution, invoked by the applicant, does not provide a remedy for unfounded applications or a licence to ignore procedure.
Legal principles established
#- Parties seeking relief from the court must do so within established rules and procedures; an application to review orders issued in one cause cannot be entertained in a different cause.
Court orders
#- 1.Upheld the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8th May 2025
- 2.Struck out the applicant's Miscellaneous Application (Notice of Motion dated 4th May 2025)
- 3.Made no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction (Article 162(2) of the Constitution as invoked in practice); the court did not expressly cite a jurisdictional provision
Relief refused
#Setting aside, varying and/or discharging the conservatory orders issued on 2/5/2025 in Kisumu ELC Petition E002 of 2025
The application was improperly filed as a Miscellaneous application instead of in the existing petition; it was struck out following the upheld preliminary objection
Order closing Kibuye Market
Sought in the struck-out application; not granted
Costs
No order as to costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
it is paramount that parties approaching the court for relief must do so within the established rules and procedures. To operate otherwise would be to invite chaos and confusion in the administration of justice.
It will be totally un-procedural for this court to entertain in this cause an application seeking to review orders issued in a difierent cause.
I hereby uphold the preliminary objection and strike out the Miscellaneous Application. No order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number of the Miscellaneous Application itself; only the application date and the related petition number (ELC E002 of 2025) are given.
The judgment is described as a 'RULING' rather than a judgment, and the parties are not individually named.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "City Manager, County Government of Kenya & 3 others v Manyala & 3 others (Suing as Members of Kibuye Traders) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3854 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (application dated 4th May 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3854/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.