Pentecostal Assemblies of God v Peter Gathungu & others [2021] KEELC 3506 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to reopen an eight-year-old land judgment because the applicants offered no new evidence and no explanation for the long delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
Applicants failed to demonstrate discovery of any new evidence after judgment; the survey material lacked probative value and could have been adduced at trial
The court perused the annexures marked PGK-1(a)-(e) and found them of no probative value. The applicants offered no explanation showing new evidence discovered after judgment; they had the opportunity at trial to prove the respondent occupied only a quarter acre but did not adduce such evidence. The Apollo Mboya and Bwire authorities on new matter were applied against them.
Error apparent on the face of the record
No error apparent; the 2011 judgment was grounded on evidence carefully considered by the trial judge
The court examined the record and found that although the plaintiff had sought eviction and injunction, the judge adjudicated the matter and granted occupation of half an acre with an injunction. The positioning and occupation issue was extensively deliberated and grounded on well-articulated evidence, so no mistake or error apparent on the record existed.
Unreasonable delay
An 8-year unexplained delay in filing the review application was unreasonable and fatal to the application
Judgment was delivered on 8/7/2011 and the application filed on 24/12/2019, an interval of eight years. The applicants offered no explanation. Relying on John Agina v Abdulswamad Sharif Alwi, unexplained delay is not sufficient reason for review. Any delay must be explained, and this one was not.
Legal principles established
#- Review will only be granted on strong grounds; an applicant must demonstrate new evidence that could not be obtained despite due diligence.
- Unexplained delay in seeking review is not sufficient reason for the court to grant review.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act
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.
- Hayombe v Kenya Water Institute (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E151 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2423 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2423 (KLR)4 Sept 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pentecostal Assemblies of God v Peter Gathungu & others [2021] KEELC 3506 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of Motion dated 24/12/2019 (suit re Kitale Municipality Block VI/231). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3506/eng@2021-05-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.