Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated January 20, 2020 (ELC, Kerugoya)· [2022] KEELC 2181 (KLR)

Republic v Land Disputes Tribunal-Kerugoya & 3 others; Njogu (Exparte) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 7 of 2012) [2022] KEELC 2181 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 April 2022
1,614 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated January 20, 2020, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents (Applicants), supported by the affidavit of James Karimi Miano, sought leave for new advocates to come on record, review and setting aside of the High Court orders of June 23, 2006 and July 3, 2013, and reconstitution of parcels Mutira/Kaguyu/3704 and 3705 back to the original parcel Mutira/Kaguyu/1290 in the name of the 4th respondent. The orders sought to be reviewed arose from judicial review proceedings (Misc. Application No. 536 of 2004, now ELC JR No. 7 of 2013, Kerugoya) in which Justice Emukule quashed a Land Disputes Tribunal award and ordered subdivision and transfer of Mutira/Kaguyu/1290 per a sale agreement, and a ruling by Justice B.N. Olao on July 3, 2013 ordering removal of cautions on the parcel to give effect to those orders. The Respondent, Lucy Mumbi Njogu, opposed the application, arguing it was an afterthought, time barred after more than 14 years, and a waste of time given that costs had already been taxed. Considering Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, E.C. Cherono J held that review requires new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, and must be made without unreasonable delay. Finding no error apparent on the record, the court held the application misconceived, an afterthought, and a ploy to deny the Respondent the fruits of the orders in her favour. The Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the orders of June 23, 2006 and July 3, 2013 contained an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review

Holding

No error apparent on the face of the record exists; the review application is misconceived and an afterthought

Reasoning

The court examined the original orders of Justice Emukule of June 23, 2006 (ordering subdivision and transfer per the sale agreement) and the ruling of Justice B.N. Olao of July 3, 2013 (ordering removal of cautions to give effect to those orders). The court found no mistake or error on the record and concluded the application was a ploy to deny the Respondent the fruits of valid orders and to defeat the ends of justice.

p. 4
02

Delay in bringing the review application

Holding

The application, brought about 14 years after the 2006 order, is inordinate and an afterthought

Reasoning

The Respondent deposed that over 14 years had elapsed since the 2006 orders, related bills of costs had already been taxed in 2017, and related litigation (Kerugoya Civil Suit No. 246 of 2017) had been filed and defended long before the January 2020 application, showing the applicants were aware of all proceedings. The court agreed the application would only delay justice.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for review under Order 45 requires discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, and must be made without unreasonable delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 20/01/2020 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 1(1), 1(2) and Rule 2(1)
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review of orders of the court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Land Disputes Tribunal-Kerugoya & 3 others; Njogu (Exparte) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 7 of 2012) [2022] KEELC 2181 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Notice of Motion dated January 20, 2020 (ELC, Kerugoya). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2181/eng@2022-04-22

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