Emily Chepngeno Ruto (suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late David Kiplangat Ruto & 6 others v David Kiprono Koske [2021] KEELC 4121 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kericho court dismissed a bid to change a land ruling, confirming that a party's change of mind after judgment is not 'new evidence' justifying review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the alleged disinterest of Joseph Cheruiyot, Caroline Chebet and Jane Chepngetich in receiving shares of the suit land amounts to discovery of new and important matter or evidence justifying review
It does not; the ground is outside the scope of Order 45 Rule 1 and the application fails
The court set out the restricted grounds for review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1. The applicants pegged their application on discovery of new evidence - the beneficiaries' disinterest - allegedly arising only after the ruling of 30 June 2020. Applying Ajit Kumar Rath, the court held this was not new and important matter within the rule, and the ruling sought to be reviewed merely implemented the judgment of 21 June 2019.
Nature of the ruling of 30th June 2020
The ruling merely implemented the judgment of 21st June 2019 by identifying the membership of the first house entitled to the 25 acres
The court reproduced the impugned ruling, which held that 'first house' is not a legal entity capable of holding title, so membership of the house - the 2nd to 7th Plaintiffs and unnamed others - must be identified. The court concluded this was implementation of the earlier judgment, not an error amenable to review.
Legal principles established
#- Review lies only on the grounds in Order 45 Rule 1 - discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason - and must be made without unreasonable delay
- A party's post-ruling expression of disinterest in a benefit is not discovery of new and important matter or evidence sufficient to warrant review
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the application dated 29th September 2020
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 3, 3A, 1, 1B of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Emily Chepngeno Ruto (suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late David Kiplangat Ruto & 6 others v David Kiprono Koske [2021] KEELC 4121 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Suit No 18 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4121/eng@2021-03-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.