Marete v Wilfred (Sued as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Ashford Gitonga Muchiri) & another (Environment and Land Case E015 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2299 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 8/4/2026 seeking leave to effect substituted service through the Standard Newspaper or the Daily Nation was necessary, given that leave had already been granted on 28/10/2025
- 2.Whether the court should enlarge the time granted on 28/10/2025 for the plaintiff to effect substituted service
Key legal issues
#Necessity of a fresh application for substituted service where leave already exists
The application was struck out as unnecessary because the order of 28/10/2025 granting substituted service remained in force; only enlargement of time was needed and was granted for 30 days, failing which the suit stands dismissed.
The court record showed that on 28/10/2025 the court had granted the plaintiff leave to effect substituted service through the Standard Newspaper or the Daily Nation. The plaintiff had not utilized that opportunity. Rather than grant the same leave afresh, the court enlarged time within the existing order, imposing a 30-day window with dismissal of the suit as the consequence of non-compliance.
Legal principles established
#- Where a court has already granted leave for substituted service, a fresh application for the same leave is unnecessary; the proper course is an application for enlargement of time.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 8/4/2026 is struck out
- 2.The plaintiff is granted a further 30 days, from 21/4/2026, within which to effect substituted service in terms of the Order of 28/10/2025
- 3.If the plaintiff does not effect substituted service within the 30 days, the suit shall stand dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the court over its own suits (interlocutory application in a pending suit); no specific provision cited in the judgment
Relief refused
#Leave to effect substituted service through the Standard Newspaper or the Daily Nation as sought in the Notice of Motion dated 8/4/2026
Leave had already been granted by the court on 28/10/2025 and the application was unnecessary; the plaintiff only needed an enlargement of time
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment
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 does appear the plaintifi did not utilize that opportunity. The present application is unnecessary. All that the plaintifi requires is an enlargement of time.
In the end, the Notice of Motion dated 8/4/2026 is struck out but the plaintifi is granted a further 30 days, from today, within which to efiect substituted service in terms of the Order of 28/10/2025.
If the plaintifi will not efiect substituted service within the 30 days, this suit shall stand dismissed.
Issues in the judgment
#Recurring typographical error rendering 'plaintiff' as 'plaintifi' throughout the ex-tempore judgment
The judgment is a 2026 ex-tempore ruling on an application described as 'a 2024 case', but the suit number and case name are not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Marete v Wilfred (Sued as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Ashford Gitonga Muchiri) & another (Environment and Land Case E015 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2299 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2299/eng@2026-04-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.