AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedEnvironment & Land Case 29 of 2017· [2023] KEELC 16803 (KLR)
Kirobon Farmers Co. Ltd v Nyarangi
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (FM Njoroge, J) determined the defendant's application dated 30 January 2023 under Order 45 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking review of the judgment of 21 June 2022. The defendant argued there was an error apparent on the face of the record because the court failed to consider the evidence of Sammy Kiplangat Yebei (DW3), and that the judgment, though it upheld his counterclaim, omitted an express order evicting the plaintiff from the suit land, Molo South/Langwenda Block 17/1 (Seguton). The plaintiff opposed, contending the court was functus officio and the defendant's remedy was appeal, and that disputes over alleged harassment were covered by earlier applications to be determined on appeal. The court framed a single issue: whether it should review its judgment to consider DW3's evidence and grant eviction. Applying Section 80 and Order 45, and the authorities on error apparent on the face of the record, the court found DW3's evidence had indeed not been considered and that paragraph 27 of the judgment had stated the counterclaim must succeed while the final orders omitted eviction. It held these omissions were mistakes correctable by review. The court allowed prayer (c), reviewed the judgment of 21 June 2022 to incorporate DW3's evidence and inserted an order that the plaintiff and its members vacate the suit land forthwith, failing which they would be forcibly evicted with police security from Keringet Police Station. Prayer (b) for a site visit was refused as overtaken by events. Costs of the application were awarded to the defendant, borne by the plaintiff.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether failure to consider DW3's evidence and omission of an eviction order despite upholding the counterclaim constituted an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review
Holding
Yes; the omission of DW3's evidence and the eviction order were mistakes correctable by review
Reasoning
The court found DW3's evidence, which wholly supported the defendant's counterclaim, was not considered in the judgment. It also noted paragraph 27 of the judgment stated the counterclaim must succeed, yet the final orders omitted eviction. These omissions arose from mistake and were corrected by review rather than leaving the defendant to appeal.
p. 4
02
Whether the court was functus officio as contended by the plaintiff
Holding
No; the court retained jurisdiction to review its own judgment under Section 80 and Order 45
Reasoning
The plaintiff argued the court was functus officio and the defendant's remedy was appeal. The court instead exercised the statutory review jurisdiction, finding the grounds for review made out, and varied its own judgment to include the omitted eviction order.
Legal principles established
#- Review lies under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, without unreasonable delay
- An error apparent on the face of the record must be one that stares one in the face; a mere erroneous decision or a possible view is not a ground for review
Court orders
#- 1.The judgment dated 21/06/2022 is reviewed to include the summary and analysis of the evidence of DW3 (paragraphs 16 and 17 of the ruling)
- 2.An order inserted just after Order (d) of the judgment that the plaintiff and its members or officials shall remove themselves forthwith from the suit land known as Molo South/Langwenda Block 17/1 (Seguton) and in default be forcibly evicted, with the Officer Commanding Keringet Police Station providing security
- 3.The judgment dated 21/6/2022 shall hereafter be read and construed as including the above order at all times
- 4.Costs of the application borne by the plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- 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, "Kirobon Farmers Co. Ltd v Nyarangi", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 29 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/16803/eng@2023-04-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.