Cherono v Ruto (Environment and Land Appeal E055 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 143 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that an undischarged bankrupt can still sue and appeal, but lying about your identity costs you your legal fees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Identity of the Respondent with the bankrupt Shaheen Saif Saeed
On the strength of the receiving order in Kisumu Bankruptcy Cause No. 5 of 2015, the Kenya Gazette Notice No. 3004, prior court findings in ELC Case No. 366 of 2015 and Children's Case No. 85 of 2015, and confirmation from the Office of the Official Receiver, Stephen Cheruiyot Cherono is the same person as Shaheen Saif Saeed
The court relied on the receiving order issued on 25th February 2015 and its gazettement, prior unchallenged findings by Omwayo J and in the Children's Case, and a letter from the Official Receiver dated 9th October 2025 confirming the identity match between ID No. 22xxx and Qatari Passport No. 00xxx. The Respondent's denials were found to be deliberate falsehoods, including his use of the alias Saeed Saeed in the Memorandum of Appeal.
Locus standi of an undischarged bankrupt to prosecute an appeal
The Respondent possesses the requisite locus standi; neither the repealed Bankruptcy Act nor the Insolvency Act, CAP 53, bars a bankrupt from initiating or maintaining proceedings
Section 9 of the repealed Bankruptcy Act, as construed in Surjit Singh Hunjan and Wambulwa vs Pius, barred only creditors. The Bankruptcy Act was repealed by the Insolvency Act of 2015, which was in force when the trial suit (2023) and the appeal (2024) were instituted. Section 48(1) of the Insolvency Act merely stays creditor proceedings and vests property in the Official Receiver; it does not restrain the debtor from litigating his own cause.
Costs of the Application and preliminary objection
Both the Motion and the PO are dismissed with no orders as to costs because, although the Applicant failed, the Respondent lied to the court about his identity and so forfeited his costs
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act gives the court discretion over costs, to be exercised judiciously, with costs ordinarily following the event. Here the successful Respondent knowingly lied under oath denying that he was the petitioner in Kisumu Bankruptcy Cause No. 5 of 2015, and the court declined to reward that dishonesty with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A receiving order under the repealed Bankruptcy Act barred only creditors, not the debtor, from commencing or continuing proceedings
- Section 48(1) of the Insolvency Act does not restrain an adjudicated bankrupt from initiating a suit or appeal; it only stays proceedings by creditors to recover debts and vests property in the Official Receiver
- Costs follow the event but the discretion may be declined where the successful party has not come to court with clean hands
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 14th July, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25th August, 2025 is dismissed
- 3.No orders as to costs
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Eldoret (ELC)
- E078 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over appeals from the Chief Magistrate's Court; costs discretionary power under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cherono v Ruto (Environment and Land Appeal E055 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 143 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the ruling (an appeal from Eldoret Chief Magistrate's ELC Case No. E078 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/143/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.