Kurauka & another v Irungu & 3 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E274 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4728 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court set aside ex parte orders against a rehabilitation centre, allowing staff limited access to locked-in patients while the main case continues.
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 Court should review and vary its orders of 4/02/2026 to grant the Applicant access to the suit premises pending hearing of the application dated 2/02/2026
- 2.Whether the ex parte orders of 28/01/2026 ought to be stayed in the interim
Key legal issues
#Whether a mistake of Counsel may excuse a litigant's default
Courts take a liberal approach; the sins of Counsel should not ordinarily be visited on a diligent litigant, and the discretion to set aside default orders is wide but must be weighed against the need for finality in litigation
The court cited Belinda Murai & Others v Amos Wainaina and Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC, holding that the discretion to set aside orders made in default is exercised judicially considering delay, reasons, prejudice and the overriding interest of justice.
Whether the ex parte orders of 28/01/2026 ought to be stayed/set aside in the interim
Yes. Balancing the imperative that no party be condemned unheard against the humanitarian concern for eleven locked-in patients, the lower risk of injustice lay in setting aside the ex parte orders and maintaining a status quo permitting staff access, pending hearing of the application dated 2/02/2026.
The court weighed constitutional guarantees of access to justice and fair hearing under Articles 48 and 50(1) against unresolved questions of clean hands (accreditation, alleged legal representation, forum shopping). It declined to pronounce on the merits, confining itself to interim relief under the Nguruman and Giella principles.
Legal principles established
#- The sins of Counsel ought not ordinarily to be visited upon a litigant who is diligent and not personally responsible for the default
- An ex parte order is provisional and may be set aside or varied where its continued existence would occasion an injustice, particularly where the affected party was not heard
Court orders
#- 1.Set aside the ex parte orders of 28/01/2026 and ordered that a status quo be maintained allowing staff access to the premises
- 2.Leave granted to the Applicant to file his formal Replying Affidavit to the main injunction application within seven (7) days from the date hereof and serve, failure to which the Court will still dispose the application
- 3.Mention for directions on the disposal of the application on 30/07/2026
- 4.Costs shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 7 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Review of the orders of 4/02/2026 granting the Applicant and his members access to the suit premises
The Court instead granted only limited interim staff access under a status quo order without pronouncing on occupation or accreditation, leaving the application dated 2/02/2026 to be heard on its merits
Costs
Costs shall be in the cause.
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.
This Court sets aside the ex-parte orders of 28/01/2026 and orders that a status quo be maintained allowing staff access to the premises.
Leave is granted to the Applicant to file his formal Replying Affidavit to the main injunction application within seven (7) days from the date hereof and serve, failure to which the Court will still dispose the application.
this Court finds that the lower risk of injustice lies in granting limited interim access to the Applicant and his staff to attend to the patients, without thereby pronouncing on either party's substantive claim to the lawful occupation or accreditation
Costs shall be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The Applicant's Supporting Affidavit is deposed to have been sworn on 5/02/2026 yet the Motion it supports is dated 05/04/2026, an apparent internal date inconsistency.
The Certificate of Accreditation is stated to have been issued on 5/12/2025 after a November 2025 inspection yet is described as the official Certificate of Accreditation for 2026; the annexure markings MM-1 and MM-2 are also used inconsistently for different documents in the Applicant's affidavits.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kurauka & another v Irungu & 3 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E274 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4728 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC NO. E274 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4728/eng@2026-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.