Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 7737 (KLR)

Ayora v Odhiambo & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7737 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
11 November 2025
MCMBOGO C.G.
2,161 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff/applicant moved the court by notice of motion dated 9th June 2025 seeking review, setting aside or variation of an order made on 24th April 2025 in which the court sustained an objection and expunged his reply to the 1st defendant/respondent's amended replying affidavit and reply to her counterclaim. He also sought to have those pleadings deemed duly filed and served. He explained that his current advocate, appointed on 19th February 2025, found that the former advocate had prepared the pleadings but failed to file and serve them, and that their exclusion would gravely prejudice his defence to the counterclaim. The application was expressed to be brought under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act (misdescribed in the motion as Rules), Order 45 Rules 1 and 2, Order 50 Rule 1 and Articles 48, 50 and 159 of the Constitution. The 1st defendant/respondent opposed, contending that counsel had had ample time since 19th February 2025, that the pleadings were served only at 9.43 am on the hearing date, that the issue was res judicata, and that no new matter, error or sufficient cause had been shown. The sole issue was whether the court should review its order of 24th April 2025. Relying on Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1, and applying Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Limited, the court held that no sufficient reason had been demonstrated: counsel had sufficient time to appraise himself of pending issues, filing the pleadings on the hearing date was reckless, and reliance on the former counsel's supposed mistake was improper absent proof. The notice of motion was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff/applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for review of the order of 24th April 2025 expunging his reply and reply to counterclaim

Holding

No sufficient reason was shown; the mistake was that of counsel who had ample time to file the pleadings, and reliance on a former counsel's supposed mistake was improper where there was no record such pleadings had been prepared

Reasoning

The court set out the grounds for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1: discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, applied for without unreasonable delay. Counsel had been given time from 19th January 2025 to familiarise himself with the case before the April 2025 hearing. Filing the pleadings on the hearing date and attributing the omission to the former advocate was found reckless and unproved. The discretion to review was therefore not engaged.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 requires discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, and the application must be made without unreasonable delay
  • The court's discretion to review its own orders is exercised only where sufficient reason is demonstrated

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 9th June, 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Articles 48, 50 and 159 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ayora v Odhiambo & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7737 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7737/eng@2025-11-11

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