Muigai v Ndimu Farmers Co-operative Society & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 121 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 5057 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru land court refused to reopen a case or stop eviction, saying a litigant who ignored their own case cannot blame their lawyer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the judgment of 13th December 2024 should be reviewed, varied or set aside
The application failed because no grounds for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act were advanced; counsel for the 2nd Defendant was on record and received court communication, so the Applicant was aware of proceedings.
The court traced the history of the 2015 suit, finding that the 2nd Defendant was served with summons, entered appearance through Simiyu & Co. Advocates, and filed a defence. Counsel participated in the last proceedings and indicated he had lost touch with the client, but should have sought leave to cease acting. Judgments and rulings are uploaded on the CTS portal to advocates' emails in real time, so the Applicant could not claim ignorance of the judgment.
Whether stay of execution should be granted under Order 42 Rule 6
Stay was refused because the Applicant did not demonstrate substantial loss or sufficient cause, nor offer security for due performance of the decree.
Relying on Order 42 Rule 6 and Charles Wahome Gethi v Angela Wairimu Gethi, the court held that it is not enough to say one resides on the suit land; the Applicant must show the substantial loss he stands to suffer. Although the Applicant claimed loss of livelihood and possible homelessness, he did not demonstrate the loss he would suffer if stay was not granted.
Legal principles established
#- An application for review will only be allowed on strong grounds, particularly where its effect would be to reopen the case afresh, and the applicant must demonstrate new evidence not obtainable with due diligence
- Residence on suit land is not by itself proof of substantial loss for purposes of an order for stay of execution
- A litigant cannot rely on the tired phrase of mistake of counsel; a case belongs to the client who must follow it up
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's Application dated 13th January 2025 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act invoked for review; Order 42 Rule 6 for stay
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muigai v Ndimu Farmers Co-operative Society & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 121 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 5057 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nakuru-ELCC/121/2015 (Ruling). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5057/eng@2025-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.