SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Orayo v Aluoch & 2 others (Suing as Joint Administrators of the Estate of Onjong’a Ongodo - Deceased) (Environment and Land Appeal E035 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7061 (KLR) (16 October 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KEELC 7061 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
7061
Citation
[2025] KEELC 7061 (KLR)
Decided
16 October 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from the judgement and decree of the Hon. Amos Kiprop Makoross given at Tamu on the 11th day of June 2024 in Tamu ELC No. E004 of 2022CoramE. ASATI
Holding

The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, the orders of 3rd October, 2024 in TAMU MCELC No. E004 Of 2022 were set aside, and the costs of the application were provided for.

Facts

The appellant Vincent Orayo sought an order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution, setting aside the orders of 3rd October, 2024 in TAMU MCELC No. E004 Of 2022, and providing for the costs of the application. The grounds for the application were that the appellant had secured a stay order before the trial court, lost zeal for the appeal, earned mesne profits from the suit land, destroyed property of monumental value, and failed to provide proof of proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution
  2. Whether the orders of 3rd October, 2024 in TAMU MCELC No. E004 Of 2022 should be set aside
  3. Whether the costs of the application should be provided for

Reasoning

The court found that the appellant had lost zeal for the appeal once he secured the stay orders before the trial court, and that he was earning mesne profits from the suit land and destroying property of monumental value.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution
  • The orders of 3rd October, 2024 in TAMU MCELC No. E004 Of 2022 were set aside
  • The costs of the application were provided for
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case