Onyango v Angagag & another (Environment and Land Case E133 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 8028 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a man's attempt to revive his late father's land case, ruling it a repeat application and an abuse of court process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the notice of motion dated 24th March 2025 seeking substitution of the deceased plaintiff, setting aside the orders of 28th March 2023, and reinstatement of the suit is merited
- 2.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the application for substitution and reinstatement of an abated suit was merited
The application was dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process because the court had already dismissed an identical application on 26th February 2025 and those orders had not been set aside, reviewed or successfully appealed from
The court examined its record and found the Applicant had earlier filed an application with similar prayers on 19th August 2024, which was dismissed on 26th February 2025 in his absence. Those orders remained operative. Filing a fresh application seeking identical relief without disturbing the prior orders rendered the instant application vexatious and an abuse of court process, warranting dismissal with costs.
Whether the court could determine the application despite the Respondent not filing submissions
Yes; submissions are not evidence and the court has an obligation to determine the application on its merits
Relying on the Moi v Muriithi decision of the Court of Appeal, the court reiterated that submissions are merely parties' marketing language and do not constitute evidence; many cases are decided on evidence alone without submissions, so the court proceeded to determine the application on its merits.
Legal principles established
#- A fresh application seeking the same relief where prior dismissal orders stand unchallenged is vexatious and an abuse of court process
- Submissions are not evidence and a court may determine a matter on the merits even absent submissions
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 24th March 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (Orders 10 Rule 11, 12 Rule 7, 24 Rules 3(2) and 7(2)) and Article 159 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Leave to substitute the Applicant as plaintiff in place of Herman Orwa Onyango (Deceased)
The application was vexatious and an abuse of court process, the prior dismissal of 26th February 2025 not having been set aside, reviewed or appealed from
Review and setting aside of the orders of 28th March 2023 and reinstatement of the suit
This Court had already pronounced itself on the same prayers by dismissal on 26th February 2025
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the Respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Therefore, the instant application dated 24th March 2025 is vexatious and an abuse of court process. Consequently, I find that the application without merit and dismissed it with costs to the Respondent.
the orders issued by this court on 26th February 2025 have neither been set aside nor reviewed or appealed from successfully
Submissions, we reiterate, do not constitute evidence at all. Indeed, there are many cases decided without hearing submissions but based only on evidence presented.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers inconsistently to the ruling sought to be set aside: the Applicant cited 29th March 2023, the court record shows 28th March 2023, and the Respondent annexed a ruling dated 28th March 2023 described as dismissing the suit for want of prosecution while the quoted ruling shows the suit struck out
Paragraph 26 states the application of 26th February 2025 was dismissed 'with costs to the Applicant', which appears anomalous given the Applicant's absence
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v Angagag & another (Environment and Land Case E133 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 8028 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8028/eng@2025-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.