Magu v Irungu & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3689 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Murang'a court refused to undo a land judgment because the defendant couldn't disprove detailed proof that he was properly served with the case papers.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ex parte judgment should be set aside ex debito justitiae
No. Setting aside ex debito justitiae requires total absence of service; here the process server's affidavit gave full particulars of service, so at most the court could set aside on just terms, which it declined.
The court found the affidavit of Boniface Ng'ang'a Ngaara dated 28-2-2023 gave details of date, time, village, sub-location, location, division, sub-county and county, plus identification of the Defendant. Such detailed service could not be taken lightly. The Defendant only denied service without rebutting any particular.
Whether a draft defence must be annexed to the setting-aside application
Not mandatory but prudent; its absence weighed against the Defendant given evidence he and Stephen Thuku sold the suit land to the Plaintiff in 1977-1979.
The court reasoned that without a draft defence there is a real danger of setting aside the judgment only for the Defendant to file no defence or a sham, contrary to Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution, Section 1A of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 3A of the Environment and Land Court Act. Evidence of sale meant mere denial of service was insufficient.
Whether the process server must describe the person served
No; Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules imposes no such requirement, and the model affidavit of service in Appendix A No. 4 has no room for a description of the person served.
The court distinguished the authority of Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Kenya Credit Traders Ltd, where the process server neither named nor described the person served. Here the persons served were named (the 1st Defendant and Nelius Wanjiru Thuku), so the facts differed and no defect in service arose.
Whether service was prima facie proper
Yes; the burden was on the 1st Defendant to prove otherwise and he failed to contradict any particular of service.
The Defendant did not deny being from Kingongi village in Karirau sub-location, did not deny being at home at 8.15 am on 28-2-2023, and did not deny that the Plaintiff knew him. He merely denied service, which the court found unconvincing.
Legal principles established
#- An ex parte judgment may be set aside ex debito justitiae only where there was no service at all; otherwise it is a matter of the court's discretion on such terms as are just.
- A draft defence need not be annexed to an application to set aside an ex parte judgment, but it is prudent to do so so the court can assess whether there is a meritorious defence.
- Under Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules there is no requirement for a process server to describe the person served.
- Where there is an affidavit of service with detailed particulars, the burden lies on the party denying service to prove no service occurred.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 16-5-2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Plaintiff and the interested parties
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 10 rule 11, 12 rule 7 and 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Magu v Irungu & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3689 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). MRG ELC NO E004 OF 2023 (OS). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3689/eng@2026-06-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.