Saleh & 3 others v National Land Commission & 2 others; Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife & 7 others (Interested Parties) (note) (Environment & Land Petition E32 of 2021 & Petition E33 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 4505 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan environmental court refused to throw out a stalled land case over Kipini Conservancy, ruling the delay was careless but not excessive, and the case will now be heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the consolidated petitions should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Dismissal refused: the delay was inexcusable but not inordinate, and the environmental significance of the petition justified sustaining it
The court accepted that the petitioners failed to offer plausible reasons for the delay, dismissing illness, death and intimidation excuses as afterthoughts since all petitioners were represented. However, applying the Argan Wekesa Okumu principles, the one-year threshold had only just elapsed when the dismissal applications were filed, and the court could not tell how much longer the petitioners would have remained inactive. Weighing the environmental and public-interest stakes, the court declined dismissal and ordered expedited hearing.
Whether the petitioners' explanations for the delay were reasonable
No - the reasons were implausible and an afterthought
The 1st Petitioner cited the illness and death of the 2nd Petitioner plus litigation initiated by Omar Sherman; the 3rd and 4th Petitioners cited intimidation and the need to amend the petition. The court held that all petitioners were represented by able counsel who could have progressed the suit regardless, and that these explanations were raised only after the dismissal applications were filed.
Legal principles established
#- The applicant for dismissal for want of prosecution bears the burden of showing the delay is inordinate, inexcusable and prejudicial; the court's power is discretionary and each case turns on its own facts
- In environmental matters before the ELC, the seriousness of a delay in a dismissal-for-want-of-prosecution application is assessed from the length of delay after the one-year statutory period has elapsed, and the significance of the environmental issues may justify sustaining the suit
Court orders
#- 1.The applications dated 5/7/2024 and 16/9/2024 are disallowed
- 2.The petition shall be heard on its merits
- 3.The petition shall be mentioned on 30th October 2025 for directions as to hearing
- 4.The petitioners shall pay to the applicants the costs of the two applications dated 5/7/2024 and 16/9/2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 17 Rule 2(1) and 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Section 19(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Saleh & 3 others v National Land Commission & 2 others; Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife & 7 others (Interested Parties) (note) (Environment & Land Petition E32 of 2021 & Petition E33 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 4505 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Petition No. E032 of 2021 (consolidated with E033 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4505/eng@2025-06-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.