Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedCivil Appeal No. 48 of 2010· [2014] KEELC 280 (KLR)

Mpenzwe Ngoba Mtana & another v Zuhura Shaban [2014] KEELC 280 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
31 July 2014
1,628 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to review its judgment, ruling that a possible wrong date on a tribunal decision is not an obvious enough error to reopen a case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a judgment of 28th March 2014, Angote J dismissed Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2010 from the Provincial Land Dispute Appeals Committee on the sole ground that the Memorandum of Appeal had been filed out of time without leave, the Committee's decision being dated 21st September 2009. The Appellants then applied by notice dated 3rd April 2014 for review of that judgment on the basis of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, contending that the Committee's handwritten decision was erroneously dated 2009 when the decision was in fact delivered on 21st September 2010, as evidenced by a hearing notice signed by the Tribunal's chairman. They also sought a stay of execution of the Committee's decision pending the hearing of the appeal. The Respondent opposed, maintaining that the decision was delivered on 21st September 2009 after the parties were heard on 20th May 2009, that the alleged notice was a forgery, and that any error should have been corrected by the Committee itself. The sole issue was the date of the Committee's decision. Relying on Muyodi v ICDC, Michael Mungai and National Bank Ltd v Ndungu, the court held that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and require no elaborate argument. The certified handwritten proceedings in the Record of Appeal showed the decision was made on 21st September 2009, making it unprocedural to hold otherwise. The hearing notice could not be relied upon without an affidavit from its author and did not form part of the Record of Appeal. The application for review was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record justifying review of the judgment of 28th March 2014

Holding

No. The certified proceedings forming part of the Record of Appeal show the Committee's decision was dated and made on 21st September, 2009; the discrepancy is not a self-evident error warranting review

Reasoning

The court applied the Muyodi and National Bank tests: an error apparent on the face of the record must stare one in the face and require no elaborate argument. The handwritten certified proceedings in the Record of Appeal indicate the decision was made on 21st September, 2009. It found improbable that the Committee would reserve judgment for over a year or that three members would sign a decision with a wrong date without noticing it. The hearing notice relied on by the Appellants was uncorroborated by affidavit and was not part of the Record of Appeal, so it could not found a finding that the decision was delivered in 2010.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument; a mere erroneous decision or a point on which two opinions are possible is not a ground for review
  • The court cannot rely on a hearing notice in the absence of an affidavit of the person who allegedly prepared and signed it, and where it does not form part of the Record of Appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appellants' Application dated 3rd April, 2014 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Cases cited (3)

  • Muyodi vs Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation & Another
    E.A.LR (2006) EA 243
  • Michael Mungai vs Ford Kenya Elections & Wominebirs Board & 2 Others
    (2013) eKLR
  • National Bank Ltd -Vs- Ndungu
    Civil Appeal Number 211 of 1996
On appeal from
Provincial Land Appeals Tribunal at Mombasa
Land Appeal No. 373 of 2005
Jurisdiction invoked
Original appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over an appeal from the Provincial Land Dispute Appeals Committee; review jurisdiction over its own judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mpenzwe Ngoba Mtana & another v Zuhura Shaban [2014] KEELC 280 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2014/280/eng@2014-07-31

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