Muriuki & 4 others v Haji & 15 others
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the threshold for review/variation of the June 5, 2023 orders under Order 45 was met
Yes - the Applicants demonstrated new and important matter not before the court when the orders were made, including the state of the project, approvals obtained, and uncontroverted daily losses
The court reviewed Order 45 Rule 1(1) and 3(2) and authorities on 'sufficient reason' and new evidence. It found the suit was filed when the project had progressed substantially, the 1st Plaintiff never disclosed the current state of the project or approvals, the County had not laid claim over the properties, and the losses and safety concerns were uncontroverted. Had this information been before the court earlier, it may have decided differently.
Whether the June 5, 2023 development-stopping orders should be varied
Varied conditionally - development may proceed in accordance with existing approvals subject to a Kshs 10,000,000 bank guarantee deposited within 14 days, failing which the orders lapse
Balancing substantive justice and the need to avoid waste of the suit properties, the court varied its orders but imposed a bank guarantee condition as security, preserving the position of the parties pending further directions and the determination of the pending injunction applications.
Legal principles established
#- A court may set aside or vary its own orders upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence not available when the orders were made
- An application for review based on discovery of new matter or evidence requires strict proof that the matter was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not with due diligence have been adduced earlier
Court orders
#- 1.Pending further directions, the Applicants are at liberty to proceed with the project development on the suit properties Nairobi/Block/104, 525-535 in accordance with the existing development approvals on condition that they deposit a bank guarantee of Kshs 10,000,000/- within 14 days
- 2.In default of depositing the bank guarantee within the stated timeline, the orders shall automatically lapse
- 3.Parties be at liberty to apply where appropriate
- 4.Costs of the application to abide outcome of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; review of its own orders under Order 45 Rule 1(1) and 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muriuki & 4 others v Haji & 15 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case E097 & E122 of 2023 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/18173/eng@2023-06-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.