Njeru Nthiga & 3 others v Samuel Nguu & another [2017] KEELC 1644 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that disagreements with a judgment must be raised on appeal, not through review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the appeal was fatally defective for want of a certified copy of the order appealed against
The omission is curable; the objection was overruled and the court proceeded to hear the appeal on the merits.
The court invoked Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution and section 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act, holding that it is obligated to hear the merits rather than shut out parties on account of technical violations of procedural rules.
Whether the trial magistrate erred in refusing to review his own judgment
No. The trial magistrate considered the Appellants' submissions and no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated.
The court noted the distinction between appeal and review, relying on Njoroge v Savings and Loan. Erroneous conclusions of law are grounds of appeal, not review; a judicial officer cannot sit on appeal over his own judgment. No misdirection in the exercise of discretion was shown.
Whether alleged errors in the trial judgment (special damages, Land Control Act bar, locus standi) warranted review
They did not; such matters, if errors at all, would be grounds of appeal rather than grounds for review.
Quoting Mulla on the Indian Code of Civil Procedure, the court held that a mere error of law is not a ground for review unless it is an error apparent on the face of the record, obvious and self-evident. Seeking to correct such errors through review would amount to an appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A point which may be a good ground of appeal may not be a good ground for an application for review; an erroneous view of evidence or law is a ground of appeal, not review
- An error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious and self-evident, not requiring elaborate argument
- An appellate court interferes with the exercise of judicial discretion only where the court misdirected itself or took into account irrelevant material or ignored relevant factors
- Procedural defects such as failure to file a certified copy of the order appealed against are curable under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution and section 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondents' technical objection on the competency of the appeal overruled
- 2.The Appellants' appeal dismissed
- 3.Costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondents
- On appeal from
- Senior Principal Magistrate's Court at Siakago
- Siakago PMCC No. 64 of 2010
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal from the magistrates' court under the Environment and Land Court Act (first appellate jurisdiction over subordinate courts in land matters)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njeru Nthiga & 3 others v Samuel Nguu & another [2017] KEELC 1644 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). ELC A Case No. 28 of 2014 (Formerly Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1644/eng@2017-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.