Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in excerpt· [2020] KEELC 1110 (KLR)

Daniel Nganga Njoroge & another v Lemutaka Ole Ntilalei & 3 others [2020] KEELC 1110 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 October 2020
COChristine Ochieng
1,187 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Kajiado Environment and Land Court refused a second attempt to review its ruling, confirming Kenyan courts cannot review an order already made on a review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 24th June 2020, under Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking variation of Order No. 2 of the court's ruling of 23rd April 2020. They argued the order contained a typographical error directing the Kajiado Land Registrar to excise 30 acres from the Plaintiffs' land rather than the Defendants' land. The Defendants filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection contending that the court lacked jurisdiction, that the application offended Order 45(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules as read with Section 19(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, and that the court was functus officio with the remedy lying in the Court of Appeal. The court reviewed the final orders of its judgment of 19th March 2019, which declared the Plaintiffs entitled to 30 acres out of Kajiado/Kitengela/6137 and directed registration of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs over 20 and 10 acres, and the subsequent ruling of 23rd April 2020 allowing excision of the 30 acres from the resultant subdivisions 23949, 23950 and 23951. Finding no error apparent in the ruling, and noting that Order 45 rule 6 bars a review of an order made on a review, the court declined to amend the ruling, disallowed the Notice of Motion, upheld the preliminary objection, and directed each party to bear their own costs, holding the impasse was attributable to the Land Registrar's failure to implement the decree rather than the Plaintiffs' fault.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ruling of 23rd April 2020 contained a typographical error warranting review

Holding

The court found no error; the ruling correctly awarded the Plaintiffs 30 acres to be excised from the Defendants' resultant subdivisions

Reasoning

The court compared the 19th March 2019 judgment, which awarded the Plaintiffs 30 acres, with the 23rd April 2020 ruling and concluded the ruling did not change that entitlement. The 30 acres were to be excised from parcels 23949, 23950 and 23951, still owned by the Defendants. The court opined the Land Registrar should implement the decree rather than deny the Plaintiffs their rights on semantics.

p. 3
02

Whether the second review application is barred by Order 45 rule 6

Holding

Yes; the provision bars a review of an order made on a review, so the application could not be entertained

Reasoning

The court invoked Order 45 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which expressly prohibits entertaining an application to review an order made on an application for review. Since the ruling of 23rd April 2020 was itself the product of a review application, a further review was barred, grounding the dismissal and the upholding of the preliminary objection.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may not entertain a subsequent application to review an order made on an application for review of a decree or order

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 24th June 2020 is unmerited and is disallowed
  2. 2.The Notice of Preliminary Objection is upheld
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 rule 6
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Environment and Land Court Act (No. 19 of 2011)Section 19(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Thugi River Estate Limited & Another v National Bank of Kenya Limited & 3 Others
    (2015) eKLR
  • Equity Bank Limited v Neptune Credit Management Limited
    (2012) eKLR
  • Re: Estate of Fredrick Gitau Githumbi (Deceased)
    (2019) eKLR
  • Kigwe Limited v Njewar Academy
    (2018) eKLR
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Company Ltd v West End Distributors
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act (review jurisdiction); opposed via Order 45(6) as read with Section 19(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Daniel Nganga Njoroge & another v Lemutaka Ole Ntilalei & 3 others [2020] KEELC 1110 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1110/eng@2020-10-06

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