Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedEnvironment and Land Case 80 of 2018· [2025] KEELC 5252 (KLR)

Munai v Langat (Environment and Land Case 80 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 5252 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
10 July 2025
3,217 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court set aside a default land judgment because the defendant was never properly served with court summons.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Kericho (L. A. Omollo, J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 25th November, 2024 seeking to set aside a judgment delivered on 19th January, 2023 in an adverse possession Originating Summons dated 13th December, 2018. The applicant in the summons claimed one acre of land parcel LR No. Kericho/Kibwastuiyo/433 by adverse possession of over 38 years; judgment was entered in his absence after the respondent neither entered appearance nor filed a response. The respondent, now applying to set aside the judgment, contended he first learned of the suit on 25th November, 2024 when the area Chief informed him of an intended surveyors' visit in execution of the decree, and that he was never served with summons or pleadings. The plaintiff maintained the defendant had been served with various court processes and was indolent, having filed the application over a year after judgment. The court framed two issues: whether the 19th January, 2023 judgment should be set aside, and costs. Examining the affidavits of service sworn by David Obara and Vincent C. Lelgo, the court found they concerned only mention and hearing notices, and that there was no affidavit of service or copy of summons to enter appearance on the record. Relying on James Kanyiita Nderitu v Marios Philotas Ghikas and Frigoken Limited v Value Pak Food Limited, the court held the default judgment was irregular and had to be set aside ex debito justitiae as a matter of right, without considering delay or triable issues. The court set aside the judgment, directed the respondent to file his response, list of witnesses and documents within 14 days, and ordered that costs of the application abide the outcome of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the judgment delivered on 19th January, 2023 should be set aside

Holding

Yes. The court found no affidavit of service or copy of summons to enter appearance on the record, making the judgment irregular and liable to be set aside as of right.

Reasoning

The court examined all affidavits of service on record sworn by David Obara and Vincent C. Lelgo and noted they addressed only mention and hearing notices. Since there was no evidence of service of summons to enter appearance or pleadings, the judgment was irregular. Following James Kanyiita Nderitu and Frigoken Limited, such a judgment is set aside ex debito justitiae and considerations of inordinate delay do not arise.

p. 6
02

Who should bear the costs of the application

Holding

Costs of the application were not awarded to either party; they abide the outcome of the suit.

Reasoning

Although the general rule is that costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the applicant succeeded on setting aside the judgment but the substantive suit will proceed to a full hearing, the court directed that costs of the application await the final outcome of the suit.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • A default judgment entered against a defendant not served with summons to enter appearance is irregular and must be set aside ex debito justitiae as a matter of right, without regard to delay or triable issues

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The judgement delivered by this Honourable Court on 19th January, 2023 is hereby set aside
  2. 2.The Respondent/Applicant shall file his response to the Originating Summons, list of witnesses and documents within 14 days of the date hereof
  3. 3.Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 15
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21)Sections 1A & 3B
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21)Section 27(1)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 50(1)

Cases cited (10)

  • Bowskill v Jofwe & 7 Others
    (Civil Suit 89 of 2018) [2024] KEELC 5836 (KLR) (31 July 2024) (Ruling)
  • Richard Ncharpi Leiyagu v Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission & 2 Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Patel v EA Cargo Handling Services Ltd
    [1974] EA 75
  • Shah v Mbogo
    [2022] eKLR
  • Mureithi Charles & another v Jacob Atina Nyagesuka
    [2022] eKLR
  • Wachira Karani v Bildad Wachira
    [2016] eKLR
  • John Mwangi Mbugua v Janet Nduta Gichohi
    [2016] eKLR
  • Mbithuka Titus v Jackline Mutindi
    [2020] eKLR
  • James Kanyiita Nderitu & another v Marios Philotas Ghikas & another
    [2016] KECA 470 (KLR)
  • Frigoken Limited v Value Pak Food Limited
    [2011] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Order 51 Rule 15 and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A & 3B of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Munai v Langat (Environment and Land Case 80 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 5252 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Environment and Land Case 80 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5252/eng@2025-07-10

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