Katei & 6 others v County Government of Makueni & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1248 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to reinstate two applications dismissed for non-attendance, ruling email service valid and telling the parties to focus on their main petition.
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 Applicants have demonstrated that they deserve the discretion of the court in setting aside the dismissal order made on 14th May, 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether the court should exercise its discretion to set aside dismissal orders made for non-attendance
The discretion was refused; the Applicants were served through the same email address used for the application to cease acting, and the dismissed applications contained nothing that would assist them
The court noted that except for the injunction, the application dated 4th April, 2022 sought the same orders as the petition, and the 17th May, 2023 application sought only status quo. Nothing adverse had occurred since 2022; indeed the Applicants at one stage contemplated terminating the petition. Reinstating the applications would not further speedy disposal of the matter.
Whether the Applicants were denied an opportunity to be heard contrary to Articles 47, 48 and 50 of the Constitution
Effectively answered against the Applicants; the hearing notice was served through the 1st Applicant's email address, the same channel through which the advocates' application to cease acting was served, so the Applicants cannot claim they never received it
The court had directed personal service after allowing the advocates to cease acting. The Applicants contended the notice was not served in person and that the email was not received. The court found the Applicants were served with the application to cease acting through the same address and could not now turn around and claim non-receipt. No violation of the right to be heard was established.
Legal principles established
#- Where an advocate has ceased acting and the court directs personal service of hearing notices, a party cannot claim non-service where the notice was sent to the same email address used in the proceedings, and the party bears responsibility for pursuing its own applications
- Parties who neglect to prosecute interlocutory applications cannot expect the court's discretionary indulgence where the applications no longer advance the substantive case
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicants' notice of motion dated 11th September, 2025 seeking reinstatement of the two dismissed applications is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 1st Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional petition jurisdiction; discretionary jurisdiction to set aside dismissal orders for non-attendance
Relief refused
#Setting aside the dismissal orders of 14th May, 2025 and reinstatement of the applications dated 4th April, 2022 and 17th May, 2023
Applicants not deserving of the court's discretion; the dismissed applications would not further the interest of speedy disposal and the Applicants can pursue the main petition
Order of status quo pending hearing and determination of the application
It was consequential upon the reinstatement prayer, which was refused
Costs
The Applicants' application is dismissed with costs to the 1st 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.
The only issue for determination is whether the Applicants have demonstrated that they deserve the discretion of the court in setting aside the dismissal order.
There is nothing pending in the dismissed application which will help the Applicants. The Applicants will be better having the main petition determined instead of dwelling on applications which will not further the interest of speedy disposal of this matter.
I therefore find that the Applicants are not deserving of the discretion of the court. The Applicants’ application is dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the dismissed application: para 2 refers to 'application dated 4th April, 2023' while para 12 refers to 'notice of motion dated 4th April, 2022' and states the petition was filed on 4th April, 2022
The Applicants' submissions are dated 11th January, 2025, which predates the application dated 11th September, 2025 and the dismissal of 14th May, 2025 - an apparent typographical error
The judgment does not name the individual Applicants or Respondents; only the 1st Respondent is referred to by role
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Katei & 6 others v County Government of Makueni & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1248 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1248/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.