Mwambweni v Nzaro (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5263 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a landlord-tenant appeal for want of prosecution, rewarding a landlord kept waiting by years of delay and unfulfilled promises.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution
Yes. The appellants filed a Record of Appeal on 16th September 2024, then repeatedly failed to prosecute, sought amendments and a fresh record that never materialised, and did not appear on multiple mention dates despite the court extending leniency.
The court traced the procedural history, noting adjournments, a consent to file a fresh record of appeal that was never complied with, and non-appearance on 27th October 2025 and 19th November 2025. Applying Ivita v Kyumbu and Allan v Sir Alfred McAlpine, it found inordinate and inexcusable delay and likely prejudice to an elderly, ailing landlord deprived of rental income by stay orders. Invoking Article 159(2)(b) and the maxim that litigation must come to an end, the court dismissed the appeal.
Whether the Respondent/Applicant was entitled to costs of the application and the appeal
Yes. Costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act; the successful applicant was awarded costs of both the application and the appeal.
The court restated that costs are discretionary and follow the event, citing Reids Heweet & Company v Joseph and Myres v Defries. Since the applicant had successfully established his case, the appellants were ordered to pay the costs of both the application and the dismissed appeal.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution where the appellant has shown inordinate, inexcusable delay and no sufficient cause, particularly after repeated indulgence by the court.
- Costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
- A first appellate court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 5th December, 2025 be and is hereby found to be meritorious and hence allowed
- 2.The Appeal (Memorandum of Appeal dated 17th May, 2024 and 110 Pages Record of Appeal dated 16th September, 2024 against Said Edward Nzaro) be and is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Order 42 Rules 20 and 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
- 3.Costs of the Notice of Motion application and the Appeal be awarded to the Respondent to be borne by the Appellant
- On appeal from
- Business Premises and Rent Tribunal, Mombasa
- BPRT Case No. E182 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over the BPRT decision under the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (Order 42); application brought under Order 17 Rule 2(1), Order 42 Rules 20, 35(2), Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwambweni v Nzaro (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5263 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Appeal against BPRT Case No. E182 of 2023; Memorandum of Appeal dated 17th May, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5263/eng@2026-06-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.