Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 8086 (KLR)

Wagateri & Sons Investment Ltd & 4 others v Mwangi & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 8086 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 November 2025
2,503 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a counterclaim in a family land dispute and ordered each side to pay its own costs, prioritising family peace.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 2nd Plaintiff/Applicant, through a Notice of Motion dated 14th July 2025 under Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act and Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, sought striking out of the 1st and 2nd Defendants' counterclaim on grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the Environment and Land Court lacked jurisdiction over the company and corporate law issues raised (shareholding and management of Wagateri & Sons Investment Limited). The respondents filed no Replying Affidavit; relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Gideon Sitelu Konchellah v Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli, the court deemed the application unopposed and held that submissions without a Replying Affidavit could not be considered. The court nonetheless decided the application on its merits. The original suit had already been withdrawn by consent on 16th July 2025 with no costs, the parties (save the 3rd Respondent) being siblings. On 8th October 2025, counsel for the respondents conceded the application save on costs, meaning the court did not need to determine its jurisdiction over the corporate matters raised. The court reasoned that striking out pleadings under Order 2 Rule 15 prevents wasted judicial resources and protects parties from sham claims. Allowing the application, the court struck out the counterclaim and, emphasizing the familial relationship of the parties and the desirability of an amicable resolution, ordered that each party bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the counterclaim should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action

Holding

The application was allowed and the counterclaim struck out, effectively on the respondents' own concession on 8th October 2025, and the court did not decide the jurisdiction question over corporate matters

Reasoning

The court noted the application was unopposed (no Replying Affidavit having been filed) and that counsel for the respondents conceded the application save on costs. Since the respondents had consented to withdrawal of their own counterclaim, the matter was effectively concluded and the court did not need to decide whether it had jurisdiction over the corporate matters, leaving only the question of costs.

p. 5
02

Who bears the costs of the application

Holding

Each party to bear their own costs

Reasoning

The court reasoned that no costs had been awarded when the suit was withdrawn; the respondents had themselves conceded lack of jurisdiction over corporate aspects; and the dispute was between siblings. Denying costs avoids penalizing either party and gives a 'neutral exit', encouraging an amicable family-based resolution rather than an adversarial one.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Not all unopposed applications ought to be allowed but they should be decided on their merit
  • Where a respondent files no Replying Affidavit, submissions filed cannot be considered and the application is deemed unopposed
  • Where a plaintiff's claim, even if all facts pleaded are taken as true, does not give rise to a right recognized by law, it discloses no reasonable cause of action

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application dated 14th July 2025 is allowed
  2. 2.The 1st and 2nd Respondents' Counterclaim is struck out
  3. 3.Each party shall bear their own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Order 2 Rule 15 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Article 159 of the Constitution (on costs/court's stance)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wagateri & Sons Investment Ltd & 4 others v Mwangi & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2024)  (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 8086 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8086/eng@2025-11-20

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