Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC OS NO. E044 OF 2025 (O.S.)· [2026] KEELC 6153 (KLR)

Ireri Karingi v Ngugi Mwangi T/A Ngugi Mwangi & Co. Advocates

Environment and Land Court
18 September 2025
TMT. Murigi
2,093 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed an advocate's bid to reopen case directions, confirming that ignoring court notices forfeits your right to complain later.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Defendant, an advocate, moved the court by Notice of Motion seeking review, variation and/or setting aside of directions issued on 16th June 2026 that the originating summons be heard and disposed of by affidavit evidence, and sought instead that the suit proceed by viva voce evidence with cross-examination. He argued the directions were issued ex parte without requisite compliance, that contested issues of fact required oral testing of credibility, and that he would suffer irreparable prejudice if judgment was entered without being heard. The Plaintiff opposed, showing a history of the Defendant's repeated non-compliance: failure to file responses when granted 21 days, failure to comply with mention notices and directions despite service, undisputed affidavits of service, and filing of the present application only a month after the directions and as the matter approached judgment. The Plaintiff also noted the absence of a bill of costs for the disputed fees and offered to deposit an equivalent sum pending taxation. The court framed a single issue: whether the directions of 16th June 2026 should be reviewed, varied or set aside. It held that although the motion invoked Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and Order 51, the substantive relief was review governed by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45. The Applicant demonstrated no new and important matter, no error apparent on the record, and no sufficient cause; his absence was not due to lack of notice; and Article 50 does not excuse a litigant from diligent participation and compliance with lawful orders. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ex parte directions of 16th June 2026 should be reviewed, varied or set aside

Holding

Application dismissed; no ground for review established

Reasoning

Although brought under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and Order 51, the substantive relief is review, governed by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45. The Applicant showed no new and important matter, no error apparent on the record, and no sufficient cause. He was served with notices, failed to attend or comply repeatedly, and did not explain his non-compliance. His absence was not due to lack of notice or denial of hearing. The application was also made after the matter had progressed towards judgment, without explanation for the delay.

p. 10
02

Whether the Applicant was denied an opportunity to participate in the proceedings

Holding

No; the record shows notice and service, and unexplained repeated non-compliance by the Applicant

Reasoning

The Plaintiff's evidence of service and non-compliance was undisputed. The Applicant was required to attend court for directions, did not attend, and thereafter failed to comply with further notices. The court found his absence was not due to lack of notice or denial of an opportunity to be heard, and that Article 50 does not excuse a litigant from diligent participation and compliance with lawful orders.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • The right to a fair hearing under Article 50 does not relieve a litigant of the obligation to participate diligently in proceedings and comply with lawful court orders and directions
  • An intention to give oral evidence, without more, is not sufficient cause to review directions that a suit proceed on affidavit evidence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 17th July 2026 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 45 Rule 1
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 50
  • Advocates Remuneration Order

Cases cited (4)

  • Benjoh Amalgamated Limited & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    [2014] eKLR

    Section 80 and Order 45 Rule 1 confer power to review; Section 80 gives the High Court greater amplitude for review

  • Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 Others
    [2018] eKLR

    Section 80 gives the power of review; Order 45 sets out the rules restricting the grounds and scope of review

  • Attorney General v The Law Society of Kenya & another

    Definition of sufficient cause/good cause - a rational, plausible, convincing explanation without unexplained gaps

  • The Official Receiver and Liquidator v Freight Forwarders Kenya Ltd
    (2000) eKLR

    'Any other sufficient reason' cannot be limited to the enumerated grounds where the interest of justice so requires

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; substantive relief under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ireri Karingi v Ngugi Mwangi T/A Ngugi Mwangi & Co. Advocates", Case Analysis (2025). ELC OS NO. E044 OF 2025 (O.S.). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6153/eng@2026-09-18

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