Agalo v County Government of Trans Nzoia & 9 others (Environment and Land Case 35 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 6733 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kitale court refused a post-judgment site visit, confirming Kenyan courts only inspect property when a party proves special reasons and real evidence will result.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a post-judgment site visit could be ordered while a ruling on setting aside judgment was pending
The application fails because the court is functus officio on the merits and the applicant showed no peculiar circumstances or expert-assisted verification of new facts
The court had already determined the suit on the merits; any review lies only under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45. The applicant did not propose that experts accompany the visit to capture or verify new and important facts. A site visit incapable of yielding admissible evidence would merely satisfy a party's curiosity, and the court must remain an independent decision-maker unclouded by the conflict.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking a site visit must place peculiar circumstances before the court warranting such a visit
- A site visit must be capable of yielding admissible evidence assisting a just decision; otherwise the court would be a mere tourist satisfying curiosity
Court orders
#- 1.The application for a site visit is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 18 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 22, 52, 54 and 55 of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Agalo v County Government of Trans Nzoia & 9 others (Environment and Land Case 35 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 6733 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6733/eng@2025-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.