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 provided (appeal from Kitale ELC; suit arising from Trans Nzoia/Chepchoina/Twiga/354)· [2025] KEELC 8254 (KLR)

Mereng & another v Mereng (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8254 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 November 2025
CNC. K. Nzili
3,659 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kitale dismissed landowners' appeal, confirming that litigants—not their lawyers—must actively follow up and defend their own cases.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first-appeal decision of the Environment and Land Court at Kitale arising from a land dispute over parcel Trans Nzoia/Chepchoina/Twiga/354. The respondent had sued the appellants for eviction and cancellation of a 2009/2019 sale agreement. After several adjournments and a last adjournment granted on 7/3/2022, the trial court on 26/9/2022 refused a further adjournment sought by the appellants' counsel who had just applied to cease acting, proceeded with the respondent's case, and by judgment dated 24/10/2022 allowed the respondent's claim. The appellants' applications to arrest the judgment and to stay execution, review and set aside the judgment (dated 1/11/2022) were dismissed by a ruling of 30/1/2023. On appeal, Justice C.K. Nzili framed three issues: whether the trial court lawfully exercised its discretion; whether the appeal was competent and meritorious; and costs. Relying on Mbogo v Shah, Sirma v IEBC and Shanzu Investments, the court held that an appellate court interferes with discretion only where it was exercised capriciously, arbitrarily or on wrong principles. The court found the appellants dilatory litigants who abdicated responsibility for their own case, blaming advocates who in turn blamed them for lack of instructions. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent. The judgment reinforces that a case belongs to the litigant, not the advocate, and that courts will refuse unjustified adjournments to combat delay.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial court lawfully refused an adjournment and later declined to set aside the default judgment and stay execution

Holding

The trial court exercised its discretion judiciously; the appellants' conduct was dilatory and they failed to show sufficient cause.

Reasoning

The record showed multiple prior adjournments (22/3/2021 to 7/3/2022), a consent hearing date of 26/9/2022, and blame laid mutually between the appellants and their former advocates. The court applied the Mbogo v Shah standard, holding the decision was within the range of permissible outcomes and not arbitrary, capricious, or plainly wrong.

p. 5
02

Whether blame on an advocate's failure to notify the client of a hearing date justifies setting aside

Holding

It does not, absent explanation of the litigant's own diligence.

Reasoning

The court held that where the appellants last communicated with their advocate before July 2022, when a last-adjournment order existed, they had a duty to follow up the case. Non-instruction of counsel alone, without explaining what prevented the party from performing its own duties, is insufficient cause.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A case belongs to a litigant, not the advocate, and a party has an obligation to follow up on the progress of its own case.
  • An appellate court will only interfere with the exercise of discretion if the trial court misdirected itself or was clearly wrong in the exercise of its discretion.
  • A party who abandons and delays prosecution of its matter cannot later invoke the right to be heard.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court (ELC Kitale, trial court)
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
Appeal under Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules against orders made in an application brought under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mereng & another v Mereng (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8254 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment provided (appeal from Kitale ELC; suit arising from Trans Nzoia/Chepchoina/Twiga/354). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8254/eng@2025-11-26

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