Jackson Mutua Kavila v Government of Makueni County & 2 others [2022] KEELC 362 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a request to review its 2019 judgment, confirming that dissatisfaction with a ruling is grounds for appeal, not review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Error apparent on the face of the record
The alleged failure to consider certain constitutional interpretation issues was not an error apparent on the face of the record but grounds for appeal
The Applicant contended the court failed to pronounce itself on the interpretation of constitutional provisions on environment and natural resources and the Fourth Schedule. Citing Nyamogo & Nyamogo and Timber Manufacturers, the court held that an error apparent must be obvious and self-evident, requiring no elaborate argument. Dissatisfaction with the judgment or an erroneous view of law is a ground for appeal, not review. The Applicant did not pinpoint any error on the face of the record.
Unreasonable delay in applying for review
An application filed one and a half years after judgment, unexplained, constitutes unreasonable delay
The judgment was delivered on 28 November 2019 and the application filed on 28 May 2021. The court found the duration far from reasonable and unexplained, relying on John Agina v Abdulswamad Sharif Alwi, where an unexplained delay of two years was held not to be sufficient reason to earn the court's sympathy.
Sufficient reason for review
No sufficient reason was demonstrated to warrant review
Relying on The Official Receiver and Liquidator v Freight Forwarders Kenya Ltd, the court held that 'sufficient reason' must be sufficient to the court, but the Applicant failed to demonstrate any such reason beyond mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Petition.
Legal principles established
#- The grounds for review are limited to discovery of new and important matter or evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, any other sufficient reason, and application without unreasonable delay
- An error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious and self-evident and does not require elaborate argument to be established
- An erroneous view of evidence or law is not a ground for review, though it may be a good ground for appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 27th May 2021 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jackson Mutua Kavila v Government of Makueni County & 2 others [2022] KEELC 362 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Petition dated 26/04/2016 (Makueni ELC); Notice of Motion dated 27/05/2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/362/eng@2022-04-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.