Chepkoiywo (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Rosemary Nyambura Gachunia – Deceased) v Karuba & 49 others (Environment and Land Case 34 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7011 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to revive a dismissed application, ruling that deliberate failure to follow court directions is not an excusable mistake.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether sufficient grounds existed to set aside the dismissal order of 29th May 2025 under Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules
No sufficient cause was demonstrated; the reasons advanced were mere excuses and the failure to comply was deliberate
The court reviewed the record: on 17th March 2025 it had, of its own initiative, declined to dismiss the application for want of prosecution and instead granted a further 14 days to comply and set a ruling date for 29th May 2025. The Applicants still failed to comply and sought to arrest the ruling on the delivery date. The court held this was deliberate indolence, not accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, and that they had not been denied an opportunity to prosecute the application.
Whether the Applicants were condemned unheard in violation of natural justice
No; the court record showed the Applicants had multiple opportunities and were given indulgence, and the Respondent's late filing did not prevent them from prosecuting the application
The court found from the chronology that the Applicants had not been denied an opportunity to prosecute their application: the court itself declined to dismiss the application on the Respondent's request on 17th March 2025 and granted further chances to comply, which the Applicants squandered. The argument of absence of a Notice to Show Cause could not stand against this record.
Whether the reinstatement would prejudice the Respondent and whether the application was an abuse of process
The application was an afterthought, a waste of judicial time and an abuse of court process intended to vex the Respondent
The court balanced the parties' rights and found the Respondent gravely prejudiced by the Applicants' conduct. It characterized the application as abusive and dismissed it with costs, noting the court is not powerless to grant relief where the ends of justice and equity demand.
Legal principles established
#- Setting aside a judgment or order of dismissal is a matter of the court's discretion, exercised to do justice and to avoid injustice from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, but not to assist a party who deliberately obstructs or delays the cause of justice
- Sufficient cause means the party had not acted negligently, without bona fides, or inactively; it is a question of fact to be judged in the special circumstances of each case
- A litigant's primary duty is to take steps to expeditiously prosecute their own application; failure to comply with court directions after indulgence does not constitute sufficient cause for setting aside dismissal
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 4th June 2025 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act; Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 12 Rule 7 and Order 51 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chepkoiywo (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Rosemary Nyambura Gachunia – Deceased) v Karuba & 49 others (Environment and Land Case 34 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7011 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Naivasha ELC Case No. 34 of 2024 (Application dated 4th June 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7011/eng@2025-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.