Grace Akinyi v Gladys Kemunto Obiri & another [2016] KEELC 1164 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a landowner's attempt to revisit an earlier ruling, confirming that disagreements with a judge's decision belong on appeal, not review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record arising from the court's findings on two different plots
No error apparent on the record; the two-plots issue was extensively deliberated and determined by the judge, who found that Francis G. Woota was allocated Plot ELD/17/94/15A(3) Zone S while the 1st respondent was allotted Plot ELD/17/94/15A Zone SA(1)
The court found that the discrepancy over the two plots had been extensively deliberated and determined in the earlier ruling. The judge had expressly found that Woota, from whom the applicant bought, was allocated Zone S while the 1st respondent held the allotment to Zone SA(1). Since the earlier ruling consciously resolved the matter, no self-evident mistake on the record arose to warrant review.
Whether failure to consider evidence and reliance on new documents are grounds for review under Order 45
No; such complaints are grounds of appeal, and new evidence cannot be introduced through review without due diligence explanation
The court held that complaints that the judge did not consider crucial evidence, failed to analyse photographs, or relied on documents not in the record are properly matters for appeal. Under Order 45 Rule 1(b), review requires new and important matter which with due diligence could not have been produced, or an error apparent on the face of the record. The applicant could not satisfy these requirements, and the respondents opposed introduction of new documents.
Whether prejudice from the ruling is a ground for review
No; dissatisfaction with the decision and allegations of prejudice are matters for the Court of Appeal
The applicant argued she would suffer irreparable injury and prejudice from the ruling. The court held that whether she would suffer such injury or prejudice is a matter for the Court of Appeal, since she is plainly dissatisfied with the decision and her remedy lies in an appeal, not in an application for review before the same court.
Legal principles established
#- Failure to consider crucial evidence or failure to analyse evidence is a ground of appeal, not a ground for review
- An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument to establish
- A party cannot introduce new evidence not previously adduced as a basis for review without explaining why it could not have been produced at the time with due diligence
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 19th October 2015 seeking review of the ruling and orders of 30th September 2015 is dismissed
- 2.Costs awarded to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 Laws of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kamau v Koibita (Environment and Land Case 158 of 2009) [2025] KEELC 6551 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6551 (KLR)2 Oct 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Grace Akinyi v Gladys Kemunto Obiri & another [2016] KEELC 1164 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Notice of Motion dated 19th October 2015 (arising from suit over Plot ELD/17/94/15A(3) Plot No. 78 Zone S). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/1164/eng@2016-01-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.