Contefour Property Consultants Limited v Mbugu & 4 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 13 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 2415 (KLR)

The Court noted that although no Replying Affidavit was filed and the Respondents did not oppose, it must still verify that the claim is proved on a balance of probabilities or that the application is merited. It relied on Logistics Link Limited v Yalelo (U) Limited for this principle. The Court also observed that the Applicant failed to file submissions within the 21 days allowed.

Relying on Alice Mumbi Nganga, Savings and Loans v Muritu, Peter Kinyari Kihumba and Tana and Athi Rivers Development Authority, the Court held that the discretion to set aside is judicial and must be exercised on sound principles. A case belongs to the litigant, who must follow its progress; where counsel fails, the remedy lies in suing the advocate for professional negligence. The Applicant's claim that he was misled by a co-defendant's advocate was legally tenuous.

While acknowledging that technological hitches can occur, the Court found a disturbing pattern of perennial lethargy: the Applicant sat idly from 2019 until judgment in 2023, missed the hearing of his own application, and then failed to file submissions as directed. The maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunti applies, and the delay was inexcusable under Ivita v Kyalo.

Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act require expeditious conclusion of civil cases. Allowing the application would go against that principle. Citing Raila Odinga v IEBC, the Court held that procedural rules are the handmaidens of justice and must be respected; Article 159 does not permit the wholesale abandonment of procedural order, and indulging a chronic defaulter would encourage a culture of impunity.