Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOthernot_stated_in_judgment· [2026] KEELC 1737 (KLR)

Chege & another v Mundaka (Environment and Land Case 15 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1737 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (inferred from registry, Murang'a; court name not stated in judgment)
23 March 2026
MGM. N. Gicheru
611 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to let a party serve court papers by newspaper advert, insisting they first trace the defendant in person using government records.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling determines a notice of motion dated 10-2-2026 brought by the Applicants (Plaintiffs) under Order 5 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking leave to serve a notice of motion dated 20-2-2025 and subsequent processes on the Defendant (Respondent) by substituted service, namely advertisement in a newspaper of wide circulation such as the Daily Nation or the Standard. The Applicants argued that repeated attempts at service had failed, the Area Chief confirmed the Respondent no longer resided in his jurisdiction, and a process server, James Ndegwa Muthiga, had attempted service on three occasions without success. M. N. Gicheru J declined the application. The court found that an affidavit of service on record, sworn by Mwangi Kamau Advocate, recorded that the Defendant had earlier been served personally at Kibendera in Kandara Sub-County and had received the papers, and that the recent process server's affidavit did not show he had searched that location or explained the basis of his information about her whereabouts. Holding that the Applicants had not done enough to effect personal service, the court directed the Plaintiffs to obtain the Defendant's registration particulars from the Land Registrar Murang'a or the National Registration Bureau, to trace her through the Chief or Assistant Chief of her home area, and directed those offices to allow the Plaintiffs access to the records. The application for substituted service was thus not granted; no costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave for substituted service should be granted

Holding

Leave refused; personal service remains practicable because the Defendant's whereabouts can be ascertained through the Land Registrar Murang'a and the National Registration Bureau, and service effected through the Chief or Assistant Chief of her home area

Reasoning

The court applied Order 5 rule 8(1) requiring personal service wherever practicable. It noted an earlier affidavit of service recording that the Defendant received papers at Kibendera in Kandara Sub-County, and that the recent process server's affidavit did not show he searched that location or disclosed his source of information about her whereabouts. The court therefore concluded the Applicants had not done enough and directed a means of locating and personally serving the Defendant.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Wherever it is practicable, service must be made on the defendant in person unless an agent empowered to accept service exists
  • Substituted service will not be granted where the plaintiff has not done enough to effect personal service

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application for substituted service by advertisement not granted; instead the Applicants to obtain the registration particulars of the Defendant from the Land Registrar Murang'a or the Director/Officer in charge National Registration Bureau
  2. 2.Using those particulars, the Process Server to trace the Defendant through the Chief/Assistant Chief of her home area
  3. 3.The Land Registrar Murang'a and the Director National Registration Bureau to allow the Plaintiffs access to the registration records of the Defendant to enable them effect service upon her
  4. 4.It is so ordered
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 5 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chege & another v Mundaka (Environment and Land Case 15 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1737 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). not_stated_in_judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1737/eng@2026-03-23

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