Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELC Case No. E354 of 2021· [2025] KEELC 8505 (KLR)

Carling (Suing as administrator of the Estate of Mona Ingegard Bjorklund) v Apoko alias Ringtone (Land Case E354 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 8505 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 December 2025
3,313 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court reopened a land case, holding that a grant still valid cannot be challenged informally and that administrative mistakes justify setting aside ex parte orders.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Kullow, J) determines the Plaintiff/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 7th November 2024 seeking to set aside the ex parte ruling and stay orders of 30th September 2022, to reopen ELC Case No. E354 of 2021, and for leave to amend the Plaint to join third parties who allegedly acquired the suit property, LR No. 7785/94 – IR 33637 (94 Runda Drive), during the subsistence of the stay. The Respondent opposed, contending that the Plaintiff lacked locus standi because his resealed foreign grant is under challenge in Succession Cause HCFP&A No. E1209 of 2021, that the application was filed after an unexplained two-year delay, and that it was an abuse of process. The Court framed two issues: locus standi and sufficient cause. On the first, it held that the resealed grant remained valid and operative in the absence of any order revoking, annulling or suspending it, and that pendency of revocation proceedings does not extinguish capacity. On the second, the Court found the Plaintiff's Replying Affidavit and submissions had been filed but not traced on the e-filing portal, constituting an excusable mistake, and that the alleged transfer and demolition on the suit property during the stay risked rendering the suit nugatory. The application was allowed: the stay and ruling of 30th September 2022 were set aside, proceedings reopened, leave to amend granted, timelines fixed, and costs thrown away of KShs. 40,000/- awarded to the Defendant as a condition, with automatic vacation of orders upon default.

Key legal issues

#
01

Locus standi of an administrator whose grant is under challenge

Holding

The Plaintiff, holding a resealed foreign grant that has not been revoked, annulled or suspended, has the requisite locus standi to institute and maintain the suit and application.

Reasoning

Only a duly appointed personal representative with a valid grant may sue on behalf of a deceased's estate. The Plaintiff relied on a foreign grant resealed in Kenya on 21st September 2021. No order revoking, annulling or suspending that grant was placed before the Court. Pendency of revocation proceedings in the Succession Court does not extinguish or suspend a grant, and a challenge raised by affidavit rather than a formal preliminary objection cannot displace the presumption of validity of a subsisting grant.

p. 5
02

Sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte ruling and stay orders of 30th September 2022

Holding

Sufficient cause was demonstrated: the Plaintiff's filed Replying Affidavit and submissions were not considered due to an inadvertent administrative lapse, and maintaining the stay risked substantial injustice given the alleged dealings on the suit property.

Reasoning

The discretion to set aside ex parte orders is fact-sensitive and aimed at doing justice. The Plaintiff's material existed on the e-filing portal but was not traced, amounting to an excusable mistake. The two-year delay was explained by change of advocates and late discovery of transfers on the suit property. The alleged fraudulent transfer and demolition of the house during the stay altered the substratum of the suit, so prejudice weighed more heavily against maintaining the stay, and any prejudice to the Respondent could be mitigated by costs and directions.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A grant of representation remains valid and operative until set aside by the Succession Court; the mere pendency of revocation proceedings does not extinguish or suspend it.
  • The discretion to set aside ex parte orders exists to avoid injustice from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, and not to reward deliberate obstruction.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Ruling and Stay Orders issued on 30th September 2022 are set aside
  2. 2.The proceedings in ELC Case No. E354 of 2021 are reopened
  3. 3.The Plaintiff/Applicant is granted leave to amend the Plaint in terms of the Draft Amended Plaint annexed to the Application
  4. 4.The Plaintiff shall file and serve the Amended Plaint within fourteen (14) days from the date hereof
  5. 5.The Defendant and any newly joined parties shall file and serve their Statements of Defence within twenty-one (21) days of service
  6. 6.As a condition for the setting aside, the Applicant shall pay to the Defendant costs thrown away assessed at KShs. 40,000/- within twenty-one (21) days
  7. 7.Upon compliance with Order (e), the Plaintiff shall fix the matter for directions under Order 11 within thirty (30) days, failing which the leave granted and the orders shall stand vacated automatically
  8. 8.In default of compliance with any of Orders (c), (d), or (e) within the stipulated timelines, the present application shall stand dismissed and all consequential orders vacated

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 3 & 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 15
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 12 rule 7
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11
  • Law of Succession ActSection 82(a)

Cases cited (21)

  • Mwakivonje v Mwakaonje
    [2024] KEELC 3794
  • Elijah Nderitu Gachaga v Francis Gakuu Gachaga
    [2019] eKLR
  • Trouistik Union International v Jane Mbeyu
    (2008); (1993)
  • Shah v Mbogo
    [1967] EA 116
  • Wachira Karani v Bildad Wachira
    [2016] eKLR
  • Civicon Limited v Joswa Kenyatta
    [2020] eKLR
  • Pakaja Limited v Trustees of Mombasa Simba Sports Club
    [2022] eKLR
  • Daniel Ngetich v K-Rep Bank Ltd
    [2013] KLR
  • Rajesh Pranjivan Chudasama v Sailesh Pranjivan Chudasama
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mombasa County Government v Kenya Ferry Services
    (2019)
  • Mombasa County Government v Kooba Kenya Ltd
    (2024)
  • Ndiritu v Kinuthia
    (2025)
  • CMC Holdings Ltd v Nzioki
    [2004] 1 KLR 173
  • Sadera & Others v Kerema & Others
    [2025] KECA
  • GKW v RNK
    [2025]
  • Komu v Principal Magistrate Kerugoya
    [2024]
  • Patel v EA Cargo Handling Services Ltd
    (1974) EA 75
  • Mohammed & Another v Shoka
    (1990) KLR 463
  • Tree Shade Motors Ltd v D.T. Dobie
    CA No. 38 of 1998
  • Belinda Murai v Amos Wainaina
    [1979] eKLR
  • Sebei District Administration v Gasyali
    (1968) EA 300
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Carling (Suing as administrator of the Estate of Mona Ingegard Bjorklund) v Apoko alias Ringtone (Land Case E354 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 8505 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case No. E354 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8505/eng@2025-12-04

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