Muguna v Mungai (Environment and Land Case E009 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 115 (KLR)

resides in Nkubu Town with her husband. The court is invited to dispose the application on merits. However, it does appear there are no competent pleadings to provide the platform for a merit-based disposal of the application. 4. As pointed out in the opening paragraph, the originating summons which the applicant uploaded to initiate this suit is unsigned. Similarly, the notice of motion which is the subject of this ruling is unsigned. 5. The law on pleadings require that every pleading be signed by the litigant or his advocate or his recognized agent. Order 2 rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows: “ Every pleading shall be signed by an advocate or recognized agent (as defined by Order 9 rule 2) or by the party if he sues or defends in person”. 6. In the past, the above framework existed as Order VI rule 16 in the repealed Civil Procedure Rules and was the subject of discussion by Kenya’s superior courts in a line of decisions. In Vipin Maganlal Shah & another v Investment & Mortgages Bank Limited & 2 others; Civil Appeals Nos 13 & 19 of 2001 (Consolidated), the Court of Appeal interrogated the above framework and outlined the law as follows: “ If a plaint is not signed by the plaintifi in person or his recognized agent or his advocate, what is the use of requiring that it contains an averment by the plaintifi that there is no other suit pending and so on? If the plaint is not signed as required by Order VI rule 14, these other requirements clearly become meaningless. Whatever may be the position in India or even in England, the position in Kenya seems to us to be that a party who files an unsigned plaint runs a very grave risk of having that plaint struck out as not complying with the law. In this appeal, we shall go no further than that because as we said earlier, we must deal with the issue of whether or not there was on record a copy of the signed plaint when the summons to strike out was lodged in the superior court. It is to that question that we must turn.” 7. In Nairobi HCCC No. 367 of 2010; Phoebe Wangui v James Kamore Njomo, Odunga J [as he was then] analysed Order 2 rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules in the context of the prevailing jurisprudence and came to the following persuasive conclusion: “ From the foregoing, it is clear that the position in Kenya as regards unsigned pleadings is the same, whether in the High Court or in the Court of Appeal. Consequently, such pleadings are rendered incompetent and are for striking out. It is therefore clear that the fate of the amended plaint filed herein on 25th October 2011 is sealed and the court has no option but to strike out the same.” 8. In Regina Kavenya Mutuku & 3 Others v Limited Insurance Company Limited (2002)iKLR, Ringera J [as he was then] stated as follows: “ An unsigned pleading has no validity in law as it is the signature of the appropriate person on the pleading which authenticates the same and an unauthenticated document is not a pleading of anybody. It is a nullity.” 9. The originating summons on which the present application is anchored was taken out on 11/4/2025. Though dated 28/3/2025, the said originating summons was not signed. The legal consequence is that the suit having been initiated on the basis of an unsigned originating summons, it is incurably and https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/115/eng@2026-01-20 2

page 2 of 3

fatally defective. It cannot be sustained and it cannot be cured. It can not also provide the anchorage for an application such as the notice of motion under consideration 10. That is not all. The application under consideration, too, though dated 28/3/2025, was not signed. An application of this nature is a pleading within an existing cause. The law requires that all applications taken out in any suit be signed. Order 51 rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides thus:“ 1. An application taken out in any proceedings need only be signed by the advocate representing the applicant, or the applicant himself if acting in person, and need not be signed by or on behalf of the court. 11. The originating summons and the application under consideration were not signed and are for this reason fatally and incurably defective. Both of them stand to be struck out without venturing into the merits of the application. It is so ordered. 12. The general principle on costs is that costs follow the event. No special circumstances have been demonstrated to warrant a departure from the general principle. Consequently, the plaintifi shall bear costs of the suit. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026. B M EBOSO [MR] ELC JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/115/eng@2026-01-20 3

page 3 of 3