Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedKapsabet ELCLMISC No. E011 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 5311 (KLR)

Barno & 2 others v DCI Nandi South (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E011 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5311 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
22 July 2026
GOG M A Ongondo
514 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court dismissed an application to transfer a case because the applicants repeatedly failed to show up and prosecute it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet (Ongondo, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 24th February 2025 by three applicants seeking, among other things, the transfer of Eldoret E&L Case No. 365 of 2019 (elsewhere described as ELCC No. 365 of 2016) to the Kapsabet Chief Magistrates Court for hearing and determination. The application was supported by an affidavit of the 1st applicant asserting that the subject parcels, Nandi/Kapkolei/Legemeet/125, 126 and 127, were allocated to the applicants by the government in 1998 and that they have been in uninterrupted adverse possession for more than 12 years. The first two prayers of the motion were marked moot. When the application came up for hearing, the applicants, without any reason, failed to attend court to prosecute it, while counsel for the respondent urged dismissal. The court found the application had been pending since February 2025 contrary to Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution that justice shall not be delayed, and invoked Article 10 equitable principles that delay defeats equity and equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent. Citing Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and sections 3 and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015, and following Njenga & another v Dean & 7 others (2025) KEHC 9219 (KLR) on inexcusable laxity, the court dismissed the entire application with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Dismissal of an application for non-attendance by the applicants

Holding

The application was dismissed because the applicants, without any reason, failed to attend court to prosecute it, contrary to the constitutional injunction that justice shall not be delayed

Reasoning

The application had been pending since February 2025 with no explanation for the applicants' absence at the hearing. The court invoked Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution that justice shall not be delayed, and Article 10 equitable principles that delay defeats equity and equity aids the vigilant. Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 provides for dismissal of such applications, and the court, balancing these provisions with sections 3 and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015, found dismissal appropriate, citing Njenga & another v Dean & 7 others on laxity.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Justice shall not be delayed; a party who leaves an application pending without prosecuting it risks dismissal under Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
  • Delay defeats equity and equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent, a principle enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The entire application dated 24th February 2025 was dismissed with no orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court Act, 2015, sections 3 and 19; Article 159(2)(b) and Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Barno & 2 others v DCI Nandi South (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E011 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5311 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kapsabet ELCLMISC No. E011 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5311/eng@2026-07-22

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.