Njuguna & another v Njuguna (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5291 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court reinstated a land case dismissed after a missed hearing, stressing that dismissal is a harsh step of last resort—but warned sloppy lawyers get no sympathy.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether sufficient cause was shown to set aside the dismissal for want of prosecution
Although the two hurdles under Order 12 Rule 7 (timeliness and sufficient cause) were strictly considered, the court exercised its discretion in favour of the Plaintiffs in the interests of substantive justice, noting the application was filed promptly within a week of the dismissal
The court noted the Plaintiffs' counsel appeared only once across three mentions and were notified that the matter would be before Justice C.G. Mbogo on 11/2/2026, casting doubt on the claim of a missing file. However, the application was filed within a week of dismissal with no inordinate delay, and since dismissal is a draconian act driving a litigant from the seat of justice, discretion was exercised judiciously to reinstate the suit in the interests of substantive justice under Article 159(2)(d).
Whether the Respondent's submissions without a filed response could be considered
Submissions filed without any response or pleadings cannot be considered as they do not constitute evidence
The Respondent was granted leave to file a Replying Affidavit but never filed one, only submissions. Relying on Khaemba, Arap Moi and Gatheru, the court held submissions are merely 'marketing tools' or 'marketing language' that do not constitute pleadings or evidence, so the court could not consider submissions not anchored in any response.
Legal principles established
#- Reinstatement of a suit dismissed for want of prosecution is a discretionary remedy, not a right, and requires sufficient cause
- Submissions do not constitute pleadings or evidence
- Dismissal for want of prosecution is draconian and should be sparingly exercised
Court orders
#- 1.The order dated 11/2/2026 dismissing the Plaintiffs' suit in its entirety for non-attendance is set aside
- 2.The Plaintiffs' suit is reinstated
- 3.The application dated 18/2/2026 is allowed
- 4.There shall be no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 12 Rule 7 and 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njuguna & another v Njuguna (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5291 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC.E001.2025-NBI. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5291/eng@2026-08-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.