Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 31st January, 2025 (suit instituted 7th February, 2020)· [2025] KEELC 5190 (KLR)

Runya & 3 others v Mugo & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 17 of 2020 & Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 15 & 122 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 5190 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
10 July 2025
1,709 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Mombasa court dismissed 137 people's attempt to revive their case, ruling that missed court-ordered deadlines and payments leave no room for review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (J.O. Olola, J) delivered on 10th July 2025 on a Notice of Motion dated 31st January 2025 by Lilian Sindi and 136 Others, seeking review of the court's orders of 18th December 2024 and reinstatement of orders of 23rd September 2024. The background: the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed on 31st October 2022, and judgment was entered on 2nd February 2024 in favour of the 1st Defendant, David Muchiri Mugo, on his counterclaim. On 23rd September 2024, Justice L. Naikuni set aside that judgment and allowed the applicants to be enjoined as Interested Parties on conditions: filing pleadings, documents and witness statements within 21 days, and paying the 1st Defendant Kshs. 50,000/= within 14 days. On 4th December 2024, counsel for the applicants conceded non-payment and late filing of documents; on 18th December 2024 the court found the conditions unfulfilled, set aside its earlier ruling and reinstated the judgment. In the review application, the applicants argued they had filed documents electronically which the court did not see due to a Court Assistant's oversight. Applying Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1, and the review principles in Parliamentary Service Commission v Martin Nyaga Wambora and National Bank of Kenya v Ndung'u Njau, the court found no new and important matter and no error apparent on the face of the record. The applicants' own counsel had conceded non-compliance, rendering the electronic-filing allegations irrelevant. The conditions were held discretionary and reasonable. The Motion was dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the failure of the Court Assistant to place electronically filed documents before the judge constitutes a sufficient ground for review

Holding

No; the applicants' own advocate conceded late filing, so the allegation was irrelevant

Reasoning

The applicants were directed on 23rd September 2024 to pay Kshs. 50,000/= within 14 days and file pleadings within 21 days. Their counsel conceded on 4th December 2024 that they had not paid, and only filed documents that day, almost two months later. Late filing could not be attributed to the Court Assistant, and the payment default was independent of any filing failure.

p. 5
02

Whether the conditions imposed in the ruling of 23rd September 2024 were valid

Holding

Yes; they were discretionary and reasonable, and the applicants failed to show any basis for reviewing the subsequent decision enforcing them

Reasoning

The court had set aside judgment on conditions of payment of thrown away costs and filing of pleadings within set timelines. Non-compliance led to the 18th December 2024 order reinstating the judgment. The court found nothing in the new application to displace that exercise of discretion.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Review is an equitable remedy, not a right; the applicant must demonstrate error or sufficient reason to the satisfaction of the court
  • A review may be granted only to correct an apparent, self-evident error or omission on the part of the court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 31st January, 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the 1st Defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21Section 80
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 45 Rule 1

Cases cited (2)

  • Parliamentary Service Commission –vs- Martin Nyaga Wambora & Others
    (2018) eKLR
  • National Bank of Kenya –vs- Ndung'u Njau
    Nairobi C.A. No. 2111 of 1996
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Runya & 3 others v Mugo & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 17 of 2020 & Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 15 & 122 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 5190 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 31st January, 2025 (suit instituted 7th February, 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5190/eng@2025-07-10

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