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 judgment· [2025] KEELC 7417 (KLR)

Keya v Aloo (Sued as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Moses Kitagwa Allo) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7417 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (implied by coram at Vihiga; not expressly stated)
30 October 2025
957 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Defendant applicant moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 17th September 2025 under Order 51 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, sections 1, 1A and 3 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159 of the Constitution, seeking setting aside of ex parte proceedings, deemed filing of his draft Replying Afidavit, setting down of the cause for hearing and costs in the cause. He claimed he was never served with pleadings or hearing notice and only learnt of the matter at the registry, alleging concealment given prior cases between the parties over the same property. The Plaintiff opposed, relying on two affidavits of service by a licensed process server showing service on 7th February 2025 and 12th June 2025, and cited the applicant's inordinate delay of nine months in bringing the application. The court found the affidavits of service detailed and uncontroverted, noting the applicant never sought to cross-examine the process server, and held that service was proved and the explanation for non-participation not credible. However, the applicant's draft Replying Afidavit disclosed a defence raising triable issues warranting a hearing. Although the plaintiff had testified and closed his case, the court held his prejudice could be compensated by costs. Exercising its discretion in favour of substantive justice, the court set aside the ex parte proceedings, deemed the draft Replying Afidavit duly filed upon payment of the requisite fee within 14 days, awarded thrown away costs of Kshs 20,000/= to the Plaintiff, and listed the matter for directions on 10/12/2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant was served and whether his explanation for non-participation was credible

Holding

The court found service was proved by two detailed affidavits of service and the explanation was not credible

Reasoning

The process server swore two affidavits detailing how and where he located the applicant and effected service on 7th February 2025 and 12th/13th June 2025. The applicant gave no reason to doubt the process server and did not seek to cross-examine him. The court therefore found service proved and the explanation for non-participation not credible.

p. 2
02

Whether the ex parte proceedings should nonetheless be set aside

Holding

Yes; despite lack of credible explanation, the draft Replying Afidavit raised triable issues and the plaintiff's prejudice was compensable by costs

Reasoning

The court weighed the plaintiff's prejudice (having testified and closed his case) against the applicant's draft Replying Afidavit, which raised triable issues. Guided by the overriding objective of substantive justice, the court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, imposing thrown away costs as the compensatory measure.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for setting aside ex parte proceedings must explain the non-participation, demonstrate a good defence raising triable issues, and show no prejudice to the other party
  • Uncontroverted affidavits of service by a process server, not tested by cross-examination, establish service

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The ex parte proceedings taken herein are set aside
  2. 2.The draft Replying Afidavit is deemed the duly filed Replying Afidavit upon payment of the requisite court filing fee, to be paid within 14 days
  3. 3.Thrown away costs of Kshs 20,000/= awarded to the Plaintiff
  4. 4.Matter listed for directions on the Originating Summons on 10/12/2025
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 51 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, sections 1, 1A and 3 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Keya v Aloo (Sued as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Moses Kitagwa Allo) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7417 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7417/eng@2025-10-30

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