Chirchir v Rono (Environment & Land Case 79 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 575 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner's attempt to revive his struck-out land suit failed because review applications must fit narrow legal grounds, and disagreements with a ruling belong on appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application met the threshold for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
It did not; the Applicant failed to address the three classical grounds for review and in particular did not address the finding that the Respondent lacked locus standi to be sued
The court recited Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 and the grounds for review. It found the Applicant's grievances did not allege discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason confirming that the Respondent had locus standi. The impugned ruling was grounded on a pure point of law, and matters that could not be addressed by review should have been pursued on appeal.
Whether the court's discretion should be exercised in favour of reinstating the struck-out suit
No; this was not a proper case for the exercise of discretion in favour of the Applicant
Having found that none of the grounds in Order 45 Rule 1 were established, the court held that it could not exercise its discretion to set aside its earlier ruling striking out the suit for want of locus standi on the part of the Respondent. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Legal principles established
#- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act confers power to review, but Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules restricts the grounds upon which review may be granted, namely discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, and the application must be made without unreasonable delay
- An error sufficient for review must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument; it is not sufficient ground for review that another judge could have taken a different view
- A court is bound by the pleadings of the parties and must adjudicate only upon the specific matters raised by the pleadings
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review dated 20th July 2022 (referred to in the orders as dated 12th July 2022) is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent and review jurisdiction under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chirchir v Rono (Environment & Land Case 79 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 575 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 79 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/575/eng@2023-02-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.