Mjanaheri Farm Liminted v China Road & Bridge Corporation & 1 other
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal confirmed you cannot use a review application to change a judgment you simply don't like—file a fresh claim instead.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether non-compliance with a judgment and a subsequent valuation of restoration costs amount to grounds for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
No. Review cannot be used to obtain an alternative judgment; the review power is confined to correcting a mistake, not substituting a view.
The Court set out the grounds for review under Order 45: discovery of new and important evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, and the requirement of no undue delay. Relying on Mahinda and Singh t/a Trilok Construction, it held that non-compliance with a judgment and a post-judgment valuation report fall within none of these grounds. The review process cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise or used to introduce a new cause of action after trial.
Whether introducing a valuation report at the review stage without pleadings or an opportunity to respond is permissible
No; it breaches the respondents' right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution and amounts to introducing a new cause of action after conclusion of the trial.
The alternative prayer founded on a valuation report was never pleaded and was never a subject of consideration before the trial court. Admitting it on review without affording the respondents an opportunity to respond contravenes Article 50. The Court held that such introduction is equivalent to a new cause of action after trial and is untenable.
Whether the delay of approximately five years in filing the review application was excusable
No; the application was not filed timeously and no explanation for the delay was offered.
Order 45 requires a review application to be made without unreasonable delay. The Court found that the appellant filed the review approximately five years after the judgment and advanced no explanation for the belated approach. This independently justified the refusal of review, consistent with the Judge's own finding that no explanation was offered for taking five years.
Legal principles established
#- Failure by a judgment debtor to satisfy a judgment, and a subsequent valuation of damage arising from that non-compliance, do not constitute a discovery of new material evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- A review application must be made without unreasonable delay; an unexplained filing approximately five years after judgment cannot support review.
- A party who seeks monetary restoration costs after a restoration order has been made must institute a separate claim for special damages rather than use the review process to obtain an alternative judgment.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over a decision of the Environment and Land Court acting in original jurisdiction, per rule 31(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mjanaheri Farm Liminted v China Road & Bridge Corporation & 1 other", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/771/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.