Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELCA E023 of 2023· [2026] KEELC 6187 (KLR)

Lucky Kai v Daniela Tosetto

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
6 October 2026
5,209 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~21 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed Lucky Kai's appeal, confirming that skipping your own trial hearing and failing to present evidence can cost you your case and the property.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Malindi against the judgment of Hon. James Ongondo in Malindi MCELC E383 of 2022, delivered on 21st November 2023. The respondent, an Italian resident, had sued the appellant claiming she sent him approximately Kshs 967,913.52 to purchase a beach plot and Kshs 4,500,000 for construction of a family holiday home, but the appellant purchased a plot at Dabaso in his own name, built a substandard house, and ejected her. The trial court entered judgment in her favour after the hearing proceeded ex parte on 14th November 2023 when the appellant's counsel did not attend. The appellant raised ten grounds of appeal, grouped into fairness of the ex parte hearing and the propriety of the orders issued. The court, per Mwangi Njoroge J, held that the hearing dates were fixed by consent, notice was duly served, and Order 12 Rule 2(a) mandated the ex parte course; critically, the appellant never applied in the trial court to set aside the proceedings or arrest judgment, so the complaint could not be raised for the first time on appeal. On the merits, the respondent's evidence was uncontroverted; the appellant filed a defence and counterclaim but called no evidence, rendering the defence of no consequence. The court found the funds were intended for the respondent's holiday home, not a gift. The appeal was dismissed, the trial judgment upheld, and costs of both the appeal and the suit awarded to the respondent against the appellant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial court violated the appellant's right to a fair hearing by proceeding ex parte on 14th November 2023

Holding

No violation; the hearing dates were fixed by consent, notice was duly served, and the appellant and his counsel never sought to set aside the ex parte proceedings or arrest judgment in the trial court

Reasoning

The court held that the primary obligation rested on the appellant's counsel to honour the consented hearing dates or deputize/seek adjournment. No affidavit evidence was ever lodged in the trial court explaining the absence. Raising the complaint for the first time on appeal, without any application to set aside below, was fatal. Order 12 Rule 2(a) mandated the ex parte hearing.

p. 15
02

Whether the trial court erred in granting ownership and possession of the suit property to the respondent

Holding

No error; the respondent's uncontroverted evidence of payments through the appellant supported the plaint wholly, and the appellant's defence, unsupported by evidence, was of no consequence

Reasoning

The appellant filed a defence and counterclaim but called no evidence. Pleadings are mere allegations; the appellant was required to prove that monies were sent gratuitously as a boyfriend's gift and applied at his sole discretion. The unopposed evidence that the respondent equipped the house persuaded the court that the funds were for her holiday home, not a gift to the appellant.

p. 16

Legal principles established

#
  • A litigant sufficiently notified of a hearing date must attend; where the court placed no impediment, the trial court is not to blame for the consequences of an ex parte hearing arising from a party's unexplained non-attendance
  • A party who fails to seek setting aside of ex parte proceedings in the trial court cannot raise the fairness of those proceedings for the first time on appeal
  • Where a defence is filed but no evidence is called in support of it, the defence is of no consequence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The present appeal is dismissed and the judgment delivered on 21st November 2023 by the Trial Magistrate Hon. J Ongondo in Malindi MCELC E383 OF 2022 is upheld
  2. 2.The costs of the present appeal and of the suit before the trial court (Malindi MCELC E383 OF 2022) shall be borne by the appellant
  3. 3.The appeal file is marked as closed
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court at Malindi
Malindi MCELC E383 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the trial magistrate's judgment in Malindi MCELC E383 of 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lucky Kai v Daniela Tosetto", Case Analysis (2026). ELCA E023 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6187/eng@2026-10-06

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