Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the extract (Environment & Land Case; judgment of 15th February 2024)· [2025] KEELC 6643 (KLR)

Mbogo v Muigai; Ager (Third party) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 694 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 6643 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 October 2025
5,976 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~24 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court set aside a default judgment against a third party served by newspaper advert, but ordered a judgment debtor to pay Kshs 500,000 monthly installments.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Before the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (O. A. Angote, J) were two applications: the Judgment Debtor's Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2024 seeking leave to pay the decretal sum of approximately Kshs 5,125,850 arising from a judgment of 15th February 2024 (trespass and wrongful deprivation of L.R No 209/10921) in monthly installments of Kshs 100,000, and the Third Party's Notice of Motion dated 31st January 2025 seeking to set aside the judgment and decree entered against him, holding him liable to indemnify the Judgment Debtor for Kshs 5,000,000 general damages plus costs. The Third Party asserted he only learned of the suit when the Judgment Debtor's counsel forwarded the judgment, having been served by newspaper advertisement pursuant to a court direction of 27th October 2021. The court framed two issues: whether the judgment against the Third Party should be set aside, and whether installments should be allowed. Applying Order 1 Rule 19 and the regular/irregular distinction in James Kanyita Nderitu, the court found the default judgment regular but accepted that substituted service rests on a rebuttable presumption of receipt which the Third Party's uncontroverted claim rebutted; there was no inordinate delay and triable issues existed on whether the sale agreement between the Third Party and Judgment Debtor was properly rescinded. Both Motions were allowed: the judgment against the Third Party was set aside with leave to file a defence in 14 days and the third-party claim to be heard on priority basis; the Judgment Debtor was granted installments of Kshs 500,000 monthly from 1st November 2025 with a Kshs 1,000,000 lump sum by 15th October 2025, having already paid Kshs 1.5 million. He bears the costs of his Motion; costs of the Third Party's Motion abide the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the default judgment against the Third Party should be set aside

Holding

Yes. The judgment was a regular default judgment (service by court-sanctioned substituted service), but the Third Party's uncontroverted claim that he did not see the advert, absence of inordinate delay and existence of triable issues on rescission of the sale agreement justified setting it aside

Reasoning

Order 1 Rule 19 permits setting aside judgments against defaulting third parties on just terms. Guided by the regular/irregular distinction in James Kanyita Nderitu, the court treated the judgment as regular and exercised discretion. Substituted service carries only a rebuttable presumption of receipt, uncontradicted here. The Motion was filed promptly after the Third Party learned of the judgment, and a defence on rescission of the sale agreement raises bona fide triable issues.

p. 8
02

Whether the Judgment Debtor should be allowed to pay the decretal sum by installments

Holding

Yes, but on the court's terms: a Kshs 1,000,000 lump sum up front and monthly installments of Kshs 500,000, given his partial payment of Kshs 1.5 million already accepted by the Decree Holder

Reasoning

Under Order 21 Rule 12(2), installments may be ordered for sufficient cause, considering bona fides, financial position and conduct. The debtor produced no documentary proof of incapacity, and his without-prejudice purchase offer could not be used against him. However, his payment of Kshs 1.5 million in three accepted installments and willingness to continue justified indulgence, tempered to avoid prejudicing the Decree Holder.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a default judgment is regular, it may be set aside at the court's discretion considering reasons for default, delay, triable issues and prejudice; an irregular judgment is set aside as of right
  • Substituted service by newspaper advertisement rests on a rebuttable presumption that the defendant saw the advert; an uncontroverted assertion that it was not seen can be a reasonable explanation warranting setting aside
  • Failure to annex a draft defence to a set-aside application is not fatal where the nature of the defence is outlined in the supporting affidavit
  • Without prejudice offers are privileged and cannot be relied on as evidence of financial capacity or bad faith
  • A judgment debtor seeking payment by installments must prove financial incapacity, ordinarily by documentary evidence such as bank statements and income records

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Judgment Debtor/Defendant is granted leave to pay the balance of the decretal sum in monthly installments of Kshs 500,000 per month, with effect from 1st November, 2025, with a lumpsum amount of Kshs 1,000,000 to be paid on or before 15th October, 2025 until full payment
  2. 2.The Judgment Debtor/Defendant shall bear the costs of the Motion dated 30th October, 2024
  3. 3.The Judgment and Decree entered as against the Third Party on 15th February, 2024 be and is hereby set aside
  4. 4.The Third Party is granted 14 days to file his Defence to the Judgment Debtor/Defendant's claim against him
  5. 5.The Claim by the Judgment Debtor as against the Third Party to be set down for hearing on priority basis
  6. 6.Costs of the Third Party's Motion shall abide the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 10 Rule 11
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rules 1, 2 and 3
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 15
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 19
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 12(1) and (2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 5 Rule 17

Cases cited (20)

  • National Industrial Credit Bank Ltd vs Aquinas Francies Wasike & Another
    [2006] eKLR
  • Freight Forwarders Ltd vs Elsek & Elsek (K) Ltd
    [2012] eKLR
  • Lavington Security Limited vs Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company Ltd
    [2014] eKLR
  • Muriithi vs Kuria
    (Environment & Land Case 785 of 2007) [2024] KEELC 5607 (KLR) (18 July 2024)
  • Njenga vs Kinuthia & another
    (Environment & Land Case 21 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 3249 (KLR) (6 June 2022)
  • Philip Kiptoo Chemwolo and Mumias Sugar Company Ltd vs Augustine Kubede
    (1982-1988) KAR
  • Shah vs Mbogo & Another
    (1967) EA 116
  • James Kanyita Nderitu vs Maries Philotas Ghika & Another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Patel V EA Cargo Handling Services Ltd
    [1975] EA 75
  • CMC Holdings Vs Nzioki
    [2004] 1 KLR 173
  • Onyango Oloo V Attorney General
    [1986-1989] EA 456
  • Sangram Singh V Election Tribunal, Kotch
    AIR 1955 SC 664
  • Phillip Mutiso Mulalya vs Samuel Dominic Muathe & 2 others
    [2022] eKLR
  • Job Kilach v Nation Media Group Ltd, Salaba Agencies Ltd & Michael Rono
    (2015) eKLR
  • Omeriye Limited t/a Light International Schools vs Hinesh Trading Limited
    (Civil Appeal E018 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 12209 (KLR)
  • Kingsway Tyres and Automart Ltd v Rafiki Enterprises Ltd
    NRB CA Civil Appeal No 220 of 1995 [1996] eKLR
  • Diamond Star General Trading LLC vs Ambrose D O Rachier carrying on business as Rachier & Amollo Advocates
    [2018] eKLR
  • Vaji Jethabhai & Bros Limited vs Saleh Abdulla
    [1959] EA 260
  • Singh Gitau Advocates vs City Finance Bank Limited
    [2013] eKLR
  • Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v. Benjamin Njiru Ndwiga
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1, Order 10 Rule 11 and Order 45 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mbogo v Muigai; Ager (Third party) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 694 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 6643 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract (Environment & Land Case; judgment of 15th February 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6643/eng@2025-10-02

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