Makongo & another v Musinde & another (Environment and Land Case 400 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 3909 (KLR) (17 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3909 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAKAMEGA ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE 400 OF 2014 A NYUKURI, J JUNE 17, 2026 BETWEEN FLORENCE HARUN MAKONGO .................................................. 1ST APPLICANT NITAS ACHANGA LUGONZO ....................................................... 2ND APPLICANT AND STANLEY MAFOLI MUSINDE .................................................... 1ST RESPONDENT SOLOMON MUNYASI ATIANYI ............................................... 2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. 2. Before court is a notice of motion dated 7th October 2025 filed by the applicants seeking the following orders; a. Spent b. That the Honourable court do set aside the proceedings and subsequent orders made on the 24/09/2025 pending hearing and determination of this application. c. That this Honourable court be pleased to reinstate the application dated 26th June 2025 for hearing on merits and the respondent be granted leave to file their response to the application. d. That the costs of this application be provided for. The application is predicated on the supporting afidavit sworn by the applicant’s advocate one Andrew Masibayi Murunga on 7th October 2025. The applicant’s case is that they filed an application dated 26th June 2025 which was scheduled for directions on 24th September 2025 and that on that date, counsel was ready to prosecute the application but that he was not admitted to the court’s virtual platform. That if the application is not reinstated, the applicants will be condemned unheard. That the application is made in good faith. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3909/eng@2026-06-17 1
page 1 of 2
3. No response was filed in respect to the application. Analysis and determination 4. The court has carefully considered the application. The single issue that arise for determination is whether the applicant deserves orders sought. 5. This court has power and discretion under the provisions of 0rder 51 Rule 15 to set aside ex parte orders. Such discretion ought to be exercised judiciously. 6. The applicant’s counsel argues that on 24th September 2025, he was ready to proceed but was not admitted into the court’s virtual platform. This assertion is misleading as the admission to this court’s virtual platform is and has always been automatic and this court does not admit parties or their counsel to its virtual platform. On the date in question, no advocate or litigant who attended court virtually sought admission because all that they needed to do was to log into the court’s virtual platform through the provided link, which is available to the public. 7. In addition, the record shows that on 24th September 2025, this court ordered parties to file and exchange written submissions in 21 days and slated the matter for mention on 19th January 2026. The court did not dismiss the application of 26th June 2025 for want of prosecution as alleged by Mr. Andrew Masibayi Murunga Advocate or at all. The application dated 26th June 2025 remains unprosecuted to date. 8. For the above reasons, the application dated 7th October 2025 was unnecessary and the same is an abuse of the court process. The same is hereby dismissed. 9. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAKAMEGA IN OPEN COURT/VIRTUALLY THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORM THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 A. NYUKURI JUDGE In the presence of; No appearance for the applicant No appearance for the respondent Court Assistant- Delphine https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3909/eng@2026-06-17 2
page 2 of 2