Republic v District County Commissioner Tigania Central & 2 others; Nabea & another (Ex parte Applicants); Kobia (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E019 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2160 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a judicial review motion because the applicants skipped court, filed late, and never paid filing fees.
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 substantive motion dated 25/10/2025 should proceed to hearing when the ex-parte applicants were absent and not prosecuting it
- 2.Whether the motion, filed outside the period prescribed in the order granting leave, was properly before the court
- 3.Whether a motion uploaded but never remitted with the requisite court filing fee was duly filed
Key legal issues
#Non-prosecution of the substantive motion
The court struck out the motion because the ex-parte applicants did not appear to prosecute it or respond to the issues raised
The court listed the applicants' absence first among the three reasons for striking out the motion. A movant who sets down a substantive motion but fails to attend court to prosecute it and to engage with the respondents' and interested party's issues cannot expect the court to determine the motion on the merits.
Filing outside the leave period
The motion was brought outside the period prescribed in the order granting leave, justifying striking out
An order granting leave in judicial review proceedings ordinarily prescribes the period within which the substantive motion must be filed. The court found as a fact that the motion dated 25/10/2025 was brought outside that prescribed period, and treated this as an independent ground for striking it out.
Non-payment of filing fee
Uploading a motion without remitting the requisite court filing fee means the motion was not properly filed
The court observed that the ex-parte applicants had uploaded the motion but never remitted the requisite filing fee. It treated this as the third ground warranting striking out, indicating that electronic uploading without payment of fees does not amount to valid filing.
Legal principles established
#- A substantive motion brought outside the period prescribed in the order granting leave, not prosecuted by the movant, and lodged without payment of the requisite filing fee is liable to be struck out
Court orders
#- 1.The ex-parte applicants' substantive motion dated 25/10/2025 is struck out
- 2.The court file is marked 'Case closed'
- 3.The ex-parte applicants shall bear the costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the judgment; judicial review jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (substantive motion following leave)
Relief refused
#The substantive motion dated 25/10/2025 (reliefs not detailed in the judgment)
Applicants were absent to prosecute the motion; the motion was filed outside the period prescribed in the order granting leave; and the requisite filing fee was never remitted despite the motion being uploaded
Costs
The ex-parte applicants shall bear costs of the suit.
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.
First, they are not present to persecute it and to respond to the issues raised by the respondents and the interested party.
Secondly, it has emerged that the motion was brought outside the period prescribed in the order granting leave.
Thirdly, it has emerged that the ex-parte applicants uploaded the motion but never remitted the requisite court filing fee.
For the above three reasons, the motion is struck out and this file is marked “Case closed”. The ex-parte applicants shall bear costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated 15 April 2026 but describes a motion dated 25 October 2025 as 'dated 25/10/2025'; the internal date sequence is unusual and the filing date of the motion is not stated
The coram listing appears to repeat the word 'Respondents' on a line by itself after counsel's appearance, likely a typographical artifact
The names of the ex-parte applicants, respondents and interested party are not stated anywhere in the judgment; the case number is also not disclosed
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v District County Commissioner Tigania Central & 2 others; Nabea & another (Ex parte Applicants); Kobia (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E019 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2160 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (substantive motion dated 25/10/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2160/eng@2026-04-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.