Henry Chepkwony Langat v Elizabeth Akinyi Mutai [2017] KEELC 65 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Kericho dismissed a landowner's request to review a ruling that his suit over Kericho land was already settled, ordering him to pay costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the ruling of 14th March 2017
No error apparent on the face of the record; the suit was correctly found to be res judicata because parcel KERICHO/GETARWET/702 derives from parcel 210 which was determined in Kericho PMCC Misc. Application No. 50 of 1984 and again in HCCC No. 40 of 1998.
The court reviewed the history of litigation over the land: the 1984 elders' decision adopted in PMCC Misc. No. 50 of 1984 led to sub-division creating parcels 702, 726 and 727; the 1998 suit over the same subject matter was held res judicata. The plaintiff's claim to parcel 702 therefore arises from the same subject matter previously determined between the same parties or those under whom they claim. Applying the Court of Appeal's test, no error stares one in the face.
Whether the applicant is entitled to the orders sought
No; with no error apparent on the face of the record, there is no basis for review of the orders made on 14th March 2017.
Review under Order 45 Rule 1(1) requires an error apparent on the face of the record. Since the court found none, the precondition for review fails and the entitlement to the reliefs sought collapses with it.
Legal principles established
#- An error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely; where a view adopted by the court below is a possible one, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of the record even though another view was possible; mere error or wrong view is a ground for appeal, not review.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 28th March 2017 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the defendant/respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Henry Chepkwony Langat v Elizabeth Akinyi Mutai [2017] KEELC 65 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Application dated 28th March 2017 (in the suit over land parcel KERICHO/GETARWET/702). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/65/eng@2017-10-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.