Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedApplication dated 7/10/2025 (number not stated in judgment)· [2025] KEELC 7394 (KLR)

Republic v Attorney General & 6 others; Wilson (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7394 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 October 2025
CNC. K. Nzili
2,134 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a late, unserved affidavit, warning that ignoring court deadlines and failing to serve documents can cost you your case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Before the Environment and Land Court at Kitale was an application dated 7/10/2025 by the applicant, Loshakep Wilson, seeking to strike out the replying affidavit sworn on 29/9/2025 and filed on 2/10/2025 by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th respondents, for having been filed outside the 14 days ordered by the court, without leave, and without service. The context was the earlier setting aside of a regular judgment concerning the Chepchoina Settlement Scheme Phase III, which had been occasioned by the respondents' failure to file the same replying affidavit in 2024. The applicant argued that the late, unserved affidavit was a nullity, an ambush containing new material, and a breach of Article 47 of the Constitution, warranting striking out under Order 19 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The respondents did not oppose the application by replying affidavit or grounds of opposition. The court, per C.K. Nzili J, reviewed authorities on striking out pleadings, condonation of procedural lapses and compliance with court timelines, holding that striking out is draconian and exercised sparingly, but that courts will not condone slackness and cavalier behaviour where no explanation is offered and substantial prejudice is shown. Finding the irregularity self-evident, unexplained and prejudicial - and noting it was the respondents' second non-compliance - the court struck out the replying affidavit with costs, by ruling delivered on 29 October 2025 at Kitale.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an affidavit filed out of time without leave and unserved should be struck out

Holding

Yes - the affidavit filed on 2/10/2025, one day after expiry of the 14 days ordered, without leave or condonation, and without service, was struck out.

Reasoning

The respondents were given an opportunity to explain the delay and non-service but filed no replying affidavit or grounds of opposition. Courts may overlook irregularities only where justified and absent substantial prejudice, but here the lapse was unexplained, repeated, and prejudiced the applicant and residents of Chepchoina Settlement Scheme Phase III.

p. 5
02

Whether the respondents' delay could be condoned in the interest of substantive justice

Holding

No - condonation requires sufficient reasons, which the respondents failed to provide.

Reasoning

While courts have discretion to allow late filing for good reasons, that discretion is fettered by the existence of explanations. It is not for the court to imagine reasons for the delay. The respondents squandered the opportunity given and the casual manner in which they treated court directives warranted the sanction.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Striking out a pleading is a draconian step to be exercised sparingly
  • Court timelines must be respected and unexplained late filing may attract striking out where prejudice results
  • Service of court processes is cardinal to the right to a fair hearing and cannot be excused as a mere technicality

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The replying affidavit sworn on 29/9/2025 is struck out with costs
  2. 2.Orders accordingly
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the court and Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (Order 19 Rule 6, Order 50, Order 51)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Attorney General & 6 others; Wilson (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7394 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 7/10/2025 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7394/eng@2025-10-29

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