Kishanto (As Legal Representative of the The Estate of Kishantu ole Mopel, Deceased) & another v Attorney General & 29 others (Environment and Land Case 317 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1589 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck down a challenge to a guardian ad litem appointment because the defendants used the wrong legal procedure.
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 application dated 25th November 2025 by the 2nd - 7th Defendants is competent
Key legal issues
#Whether the court has jurisdiction to set aside an order appointing a guardian ad litem on an application not premised on Order 32 rule 9 or Order 45
The application was incompetent and was struck out; the proper remedies were review under Order 45 or an appeal
Order 32 rule 9 provides the grounds for removal of a guardian ad litem during a suit, but the application did not invoke rule 9 or any of its grounds. Nor did it cite grounds for review under Order 45 rule 1. The inherent jurisdiction of the court cannot be used to assume jurisdiction where none is conferred by statute. Absent any legal basis for setting aside the appointment, the application failed and was struck out with costs to the Plaintiffs.
Legal principles established
#- A party aggrieved by an order appointing a guardian ad litem must pursue review under Order 45 or appeal; the court's inherent jurisdiction cannot substitute for a statutory basis to set aside such an order
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 25th November 2025 by the 2nd - 7th Defendants is struck out
- 2.Costs of the application to the Plaintiffs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 32 rules 1, 2, 3 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Direction that the 2nd Plaintiff furnish cogent medical evidence of the alleged mental incapacity of Geofirey Moriaso Maloiy within 30 days
The application was incompetent; no statutory provision allowed the court to set aside an order made under Order 32 rule 3 other than by review or appeal
Setting aside the appointment of Josephine Maloiy as guardian ad litem for want of locus standi
No provision of law cited permitting the court to undo an order made under Order 32 rule 3
Costs
Costs of the application to the Plaintiffs
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 application is hereby struck out with costs to the Plaintifis. It is so ordered.
While it is true that this court has inherent power to protect and regulate its own processes, the power does not extend to assumption of jurisdiction where none is conferred by statute.
The Applicants have not cited any provisions of the law which allows the court to undo what it had already done under rule 3 of Order 32 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
the only option available to the Applicants then would be review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules or an appeal against the order to the Court of Appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kishanto (As Legal Representative of the The Estate of Kishantu ole Mopel, Deceased) & another v Attorney General & 29 others (Environment and Land Case 317 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1589 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1589/eng@2026-03-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.