Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in judgment (Memorandum of Appeal dated 14/12/2023)· [2025] KEELC 7592 (KLR)

M’Aciuri & 2 others v M’naituli & another (Environment and Land Appeal E051 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7592 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 November 2025
BEB M Eboso
261 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out an appeal filed without the named appellants' consent, showing unauthorized appeals will not survive.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an appeal lodged by a memorandum of appeal dated 14 December 2023, drawn by M/s M G Kaume & Co Advocates, naming the District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer and the Attorney General as the 2nd and 3rd appellants alongside a first appellant. On 23 October 2025, the Attorney General, through Senior State Counsel Ms E. Wairimu, disowned the appeal, stating that the advocates were never instructed to lodge it. The court then issued a notice to show cause, served on the advocates on 24 October 2025, requiring them to attend and demonstrate why the appeal should not be struck out as an abuse of the process of the court. The advocates did not attend court to offer any explanation, and the appellants were also absent. Holding that the appeal was joint and had been disowned by two of the three appellants, the court struck it out. Because it could not determine which of the three appellants bore responsibility for the unauthorized filing, the court declined to award costs. The judgment was delivered ex tempore at Meru on 4 November 2025 by B M Eboso, ELC Judge, with Carl Peters Mbaabu appearing for the respondent and Ms Wairimu for the 2nd and 3rd appellants. No authorities or statutes were cited in the judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appeal should be struck out as an abuse of process

Holding

The appeal was struck out because two of the three joint appellants disowned it and the advocates on record failed to attend court to show cause why it should be sustained

Reasoning

The Attorney General disowned the appeal, stating the advocates were never instructed to lodge it. The court issued a notice to show cause, served on the advocates, who did not attend to explain. With two of three joint appellants disowning the appeal, the court found it an abuse of process and struck it out. Costs were withheld because responsibility for the filing could not be attributed to a specific appellant.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal filed without the instruction of the appellants on whose behalf it is lodged, and disowned by them, is an abuse of the process of the court and may be struck out

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is struck out for being an abuse of the process of the court
  2. 2.No award of costs due to lack of clarity on which of the three appellants was responsible
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (memorandum of appeal dated 14/12/2023; specific provision not stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "M’Aciuri & 2 others v M’naituli & another (Environment and Land Appeal E051 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7592 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Appeal dated 14/12/2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7592/eng@2025-11-04

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