Chiagra & another v KCA University & 5 others (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3990 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kisumu court allowed a party to file a fresh affidavit after their first was struck out, prioritising a fair decision on the evidence over strict procedural technicalities.
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 applicant should be granted leave to file a fresh Replying Affidavit in response to the Petitioners' application dated 4/4/2025, the previous Replying Affidavit having been struck out
- 2.Whether the Supporting Affidavit to the application and the intended Replying Affidavit offend the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules (commissioning, stamping and annexures)
Key legal issues
#Whether leave should be granted to file a fresh Replying Affidavit after the earlier one was struck out
Leave granted, subject to the prior strike-out for non-compliance with the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act and on terms as to time and costs
The court noted it was not disputed that the applicant's earlier Replying Affidavit was struck out for contravening the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act. Weighing the objection on commissioning and annexures against the need for substantive justice, the court allowed the application so the matter could be determined on merits and evidence rather than on defective documentation. The intended Replying Affidavit was only a draft at hearing.
Legal principles established
#- Courts should, where possible, determine disputes on the merits rather than on procedural technicalities
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant is granted leave to file and serve a Replying Affidavit to the Petitioners' application dated 4/4/2025 within three (3) days
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the petitioners
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; matter is an interlocutory application in a petition under the court's inherent/procedural powers to regulate its own proceedings
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.
To enable the court to reach an outcome based on merits and evidence and to ensure substantive justice is served, the application is hereby allowed in the following terms
The applicant is hereby granted leave to file and serve a Replying Afidavit to the petitioners' application dated 4/4/2025 within three (3) days hereof
Costs of the application to the petitioners.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, court name or parties' names; parties identified only as 'Petitioners' and 'Respondent'
Grounds of opposition refer to affidavits offending Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules, while the judgment records the striking out as contravention of the Act; the two bases are used interchangeably
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chiagra & another v KCA University & 5 others (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3990 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3990/eng@2025-05-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.