Mwaura & 2 others v Prayers Beyond Boundaries Ministries & 4 others (Environment and Land Petition E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2291 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court gave a community group a second chance, reinstating its environmental case despite a lawyer's missed hearing, with costs.
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 Orders issued on 9th July 2025 should be set aside and the Application dated 17th March 2025 reinstated
Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal orders of 9th July 2025 should be set aside and the Application dated 17th March 2025 reinstated
The application was allowed; the dismissal was set aside and the substantive application reinstated despite the Petitioners' Advocates' repeated non-appearances, because the Petition raised issues of public importance and no prejudice would be suffered by the Respondents.
The Court acknowledged the power under Order 12 rule 7 but sternly reprimanded counsel for repeated non-appearances and warned that further unexplained absence would not be tolerated. It found the one-month delay in filing the reinstatement application was delay but not inordinate, inexcusable or productive of injustice, and noted the 1st and 4th Respondents had already filed responses, so no prejudice would be suffered by reinstating and determining the application on its merits.
Whether the one-month delay in filing the reinstatement application was inordinate
The one-month delay was a delay but not inordinate, inexcusable or causative of injustice capable of mitigation only by costs.
Relying on the Supreme Court's guidance in Muya v Tribunal Appointed to Investigate the Conduct of Justice Martin Mati Muya, the Court held that inordinate delay must be apparent, self-evident and obvious, and is a question of fact determined case by case. Measured against that standard, one month did not qualify as inordinate.
Legal principles established
#- The power to set aside a dismissal for non-attendance under Order 12 rule 7 is discretionary and to be exercised case by case
- Whether a delay is inordinate is determined on a case by case basis on the peculiar facts and circumstances
Court orders
#- 1.The orders of the Court dated 9th July 2025 dismissing the Application dated 17th March 2025 for non-attendance are set aside
- 2.The Application dated 17th March 2025 is reinstated and shall be set down for hearing
- 3.Parties who have not yet done so to file and serve responses and written submissions to the Application dated 17th March 2025 within 30 days from the date of the Ruling
- 4.The Petitioner shall pay the 1st Respondent thrown away costs of Ksh. 20,000 for the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 12 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 3A and Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (inherent power and overriding objective)
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.
Where under this Order judgment has been entered or the suit has been dismissed, the court, on application, may set aside or vary the judgment or order upon such terms as may be just.
This is however a discretionary remedy which is to be exercised on a case to case basis.
while the one month delay in filing this reinstatement application can be argued as a delay, this court does not find that this delay is inordinate, inexcusable or caused any injustice to the Respondent which can be mitigated by way of costs.
The orders of this Court dated 9th July 2025 dismissing the Application dated 17th March 2025 for non-attendance are hereby set aside.
The Application dated 17th March 2025 is hereby reinstated and shall be set down for hearing.
The Petitioner shall pay the 1st Respondent thrown away costs of Ksh. 20,000 for the application
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the petition itself and the full party names are not stated in the judgment; only the Application dated 12th September 2025 is identified.
The 1st Respondent argued there was a two-month delay (orders of 9th July 2025, application filed September 2025), but the Court addressed only a one-month delay.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwaura & 2 others v Prayers Beyond Boundaries Ministries & 4 others (Environment and Land Petition E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2291 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 12th September 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2291/eng@2026-04-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.