Raymond & another v Attorney General & others (Environment and Land Case 46 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1674 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Malindi reinstated a land suit dismissed for want of prosecution, ruling that prompt, well-evidenced applications deserve a hearing on the merits.
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 15th December 2025 seeking setting aside of orders of 10th December 2025 dismissing the suit for want of prosecution should be allowed
- 2.Whether grounds 3 and 4 raised by the 4th defendant (limitation and Section 79 and 80 of the Land Registration Act) could be determined at the interlocutory stage
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit dismissed for want of prosecution should be reinstated
The application was timeously filed on the same day as the dismissal, the applicant explained the absence of counsel (unwell counsel, AG's email of unavailability, witnesses travelling from Lamu), and the 4th defendant's substantive objections could not be tried interlocutorily, so the application was allowed in terms of prayer 2.
The court held that the discretion to set aside orders is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously; promptitude and supporting evidence determine the outcome. The application was lodged on the same day as the dismissal. The affidavit explained that the Attorney General's email of 9th December 2025 and counsel's illness caused the non-attendance. The 4th defendant's grounds 3 and 4 raised substantive issues (limitation; Sections 79 and 80 of the Land Registration Act) not triable at the interlocutory stage, leaving the court with the option of granting the application.
Legal principles established
#- The discretion to set aside the court's orders is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, with promptitude and supporting evidence being determinative.
- Objections going to the substance of a case (e.g. limitation) cannot be tried at an interlocutory reinstatement stage.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 15th December 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer number 2 thereof (reinstatement of the suit dismissed for want of prosecution)
- 2.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
- 3.The suit shall be mentioned on 26th May 2026 for the fixing of a fresh hearing date convenient to all parties
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the court to set aside its own orders dismissing a suit for want of prosecution
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.
It is trite that the discretion of the court to set aside its orders are unfettered but that the discretion must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously.
Grounds number 3 and 4 go to the substance of the case and cannot be tried at an interlocutory stage.
I therefore find that the application dated 15th December 2025 has merit and the same is allowed in terms of prayer number 2 thereof. The costs of the application shall be in the course. The suit shall be mentioned on 26th May 2026 for the fixing of a fresh hearing date convenient to all parties.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to 'the 4th respondent' though the opposing party is described elsewhere as the 4th defendant; inconsistent role labels within the ruling.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Raymond & another v Attorney General & others (Environment and Land Case 46 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1674 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 15th December 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1674/eng@2026-03-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.