Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion Application dated 28th January, 2025· [2025] KEELC 8006 (KLR)

County Government of Uasin Gishu v Trustees Eldoret Churches Urban Project Trust Fund (Environment and Land Case E031 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8006 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 November 2025
CYC. K. Yano
1,692 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An Eldoret court refused to dismiss a dormant-looking land case, ruling that a suit can only be struck out after a full year of total inactivity by both sides.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The defendant filed a Notice of Motion dated 28th January 2025 seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's suit (filed 2nd June 2023) for want of prosecution, plus costs. The application was supported by an affidavit of Bishop Thomas Kogo, the defendant's chairman, who deponed that despite service of summons in January 2024 and filing of a defence in February 2024, the plaintiff had taken no steps to prosecute the suit for over one year and eight months. The plaintiff, though served and granted repeated adjournments, filed no response, leaving the application unopposed and canvassed by way of the defendant's written submissions only. The court, Hon. C. K. Yano J, framed two issues: whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution, and costs. Applying Order 17 Rule 2(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the principles in Argan Wekesa Okumu v Dima College Limited & 2 others [2015] eKLR, the court examined the record and found the suit had been active: the defendant's injunction application was determined by Hon. E. Obaga J on 3rd October 2024, a review application was determined on 19th December 2024, and an Order 11 compliance mention took place on 4th March 2025. There had therefore been no one-year period of inaction, and the application was premature. On costs, although costs follow the event, the court declined to award costs to the plaintiff because the application was unopposed and the plaintiff incurred no expenses. The court dismissed the application with no orders as to costs and directed the plaintiff to comply with Order 11 and fix the suit for hearing expeditiously.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution

Holding

Application dismissed as premature; the suit was active

Reasoning

Order 17 Rule 2(1) requires one year of inaction before dismissal. The record showed the defendant's injunction application heard and determined on 03.10.2024, a review application determined on 19.12.2024, and an Order 11 compliance mention on 4th March 2025. The suit was therefore active within the preceding year and the applicant failed to demonstrate the statutory inaction.

p. 4
02

Costs of the application

Holding

No costs awarded to either party

Reasoning

Although costs normally follow the event, the application was unopposed and the respondent incurred no expenses defending it, so no costs were awarded to the respondent despite the dismissal.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit qualifies for dismissal for want of prosecution only where no application has been made or step taken by either party for at least one year before the application

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated 28th January, 2025 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
  2. 2.The plaintiff is directed to expeditiously comply with the requirements under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules and fix the matter for hearing.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 17 Rule 2(1) and (3)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11

Cases cited (2)

  • Argan Wekesa Okumu v Dima College Limited & 2 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Ivita v Kyumbu
    (1984) KLR 441
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 17 Rule 2(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "County Government of Uasin Gishu v Trustees Eldoret Churches Urban Project Trust Fund (Environment and Land Case E031 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8006 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion Application dated 28th January, 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8006/eng@2025-11-20

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