John Ngimor & 554 others v Northern Rangelands Trust & 3 others [2021] KEELC 51 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to widen a conservation order, confirming that review only fixes obvious errors, not disagreements with a ruling.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the omission of the words 'and any other activity under the MOU' from the conservatory order constituted an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review
No. The conservatory orders were deliberately crafted and specific; the alleged error was not self-evident and its correction would alter the substance of the ruling.
The court revisited its ruling and found it had consciously struck a balance and asserted proportionality, deliberately permitting benevolent activities under the MOU while injuncting mapping, surveying, delineation, evictions and wildlife importation. The applicants' complaint was in substance that the court exercised its discretion wrongly, which requires elaborate argument and is a matter for appeal, not review under Order 45.
Whether the court had jurisdiction to review and substantially vary its ruling under the slip rule
No. The extent of the slip rule power is limited to correcting obvious errors incapable of generating controversy; it cannot be used to re-open matters already canvassed.
The Respondents argued the motion sought to substantially vary the ruling on matters already decided, on which the court was functus officio. Constitutional petitions are governed by the Mutunga Rules and any variation of conservatory orders should have been sought under Rule 25. The court agreed the alleged error was a fine point of interpretation rather than a clerical mistake.
Legal principles established
#- A review may only be granted to correct an error or omission that is self-evident on the face of the record; an error requiring elaborate argument or one where the court exercised its discretion wrongly is a ground for appeal, not review
- Where the view adopted by the court in the original record is a possible one, it cannot be an error and is no ground for review, though it may be a ground for appeal
- An application for review must be made without unreasonable delay
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 7th October 2021 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 165(3)(b) and (d) and Article 165(4) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Ngimor & 554 others v Northern Rangelands Trust & 3 others [2021] KEELC 51 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Petition dated 16th December 2020; Application dated 7th October 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/51/eng@2021-11-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.