Wanjau v Wanyoike (Sued on Behalf of the Estate of Njoki Kibe) (Environment and Land Case 147 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 7183 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court reinstated a land suit dismissed without the owner ever being served notice, stressing courts should dismiss cases sparingly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of two years and eleven months in setting the suit down for hearing was inordinate and inexcusable
The delay was excusable because the Plaintiff demonstrated effort to set the suit down for hearing, including requesting judgment when the Defendant failed to enter appearance or file a defence.
The court applied the principles governing dismissal for want of prosecution, noting there is no precise measure of inordinate delay and that it depends on the circumstances of each case. The Plaintiff had requested judgment on 30/10/2018 when the Defendant failed to enter appearance, and had made several visits to the registry seeking mention dates. The annexed documents confirmed steps taken to prosecute the suit, so the delay of two years and eleven months was excusable.
Whether the Notice to Show Cause was served upon the Plaintiff before dismissal of the suit
The Plaintiff was not served with the Notice to Show Cause; the dismissal order could not stand where the affected party was never notified.
The court had directed on 14/12/2020 that the NTSC be served through the Court Registry, but a diligent perusal of the file showed no indication of service. The court rejected the view that listing a matter in the online cause list suffices as notice, holding that a litigant must be given a chance to prosecute their case. Failure of service meant the Plaintiff was unaware the matter was listed for dismissal and was denied the chance to show cause.
Legal principles established
#- The test for dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution is whether the delay is prolonged and inexcusable and, if so, whether justice can still be done despite the delay.
- A party affected by an order dismissing a suit for want of prosecution who was not afforded an opportunity to show cause is entitled to have the order set aside.
- Dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution is a draconian act that should be done sparingly; courts should strive to sustain suits where justice can still be done despite the delay.
Court orders
#- 1.The order made on 22nd March 2021 dismissing the suit is set aside and the suit is reinstated
- 2.The Plaintiff shall file and serve all necessary papers and pleadings, including witness statements and documents, within fourteen (14) days from today's date
- 3.The Defendant shall file and serve all necessary papers and pleadings including witness statements and documents within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the Plaintiff's documents
- 4.In default by the Defendant, the suit shall be listed for formal proof without the necessity of an application
- 5.The suit shall be mentioned on 17/11/2025 for further directions
- 6.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 Rule 1 and Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wanjau v Wanyoike (Sued on Behalf of the Estate of Njoki Kibe) (Environment and Land Case 147 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 7183 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7183/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.