Kenya Anti – Corruption Commission v Njuguna & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 184 of 2010) [2024] KEELC 4520 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a landowner's bid to reverse an unfavourable ruling, confirming that review applications only succeed on narrow legal grounds, not disappointment with the result.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ruling of 16th October 2023 should be reviewed, varied or set aside
The application for review was dismissed; none of the grounds in Section 80 and Order 45 were established.
The court held that the Applicant did not demonstrate discovery of new and important matter or evidence, nor an error apparent on the face of the record, nor any other sufficient reason. The court reasoned that a review is not an appeal, that the court cannot sit on appeal on its own decision, and that the Applicant failed to graphically pinpoint any specific errors apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Whether failure to serve a Notice of Change of Advocates excused the Applicant's non-attendance at the hearing
The court held it did not; the Applicant's vigilance duty and status as a legal practitioner weighed against him.
The court concurred with the Plaintiff that even with an advocate on record, a litigant has a duty to follow up on the status of the case at the registry, which is open to the public. The Applicant, claiming to have been a judicial officer and being well versed with the law and court procedure, was held to an even higher standard of vigilance over his own litigation.
Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay
The court found the delay was reasonable but the substantive grounds for review still failed.
The ruling sought to be reviewed was delivered on 16th October 2023 and the application was dated 17th November 2023, which the court found to be a reasonable duration. However, satisfying the timing requirement alone did not assist the Applicant because he failed on the substantive grounds for review under Section 80 and Order 45.
Who bears the costs of the application
Costs were awarded to the Plaintiff/Respondent, costs following the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
The court applied the well-established principle that costs follow the event, citing Supreme Court authority, and found the Plaintiff/Respondent the successful party entitled to costs absent exceptional circumstances.
Legal principles established
#- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act gives the power of review while Order 45 sets out the restrictive rules and grounds for its exercise, and any application must be made without unreasonable delay
- A court cannot sit on appeal on its own decision; review is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and not re-appraisal of evidence or law
- A litigant must remain vigilant even when represented by an advocate, and the duty is higher for a legal practitioner
Court orders
#- 1.THAT the Notice of Motion application dated 17th November, 2023 be and is hereby found to be devoid of merit and hence it is disallowed in entirety with costs
- 2.THAT for expediency sake, the Honourable Court shall proceed to render its Judgement on 31st July, 2024
- 3.THAT the costs of the Notice of Motion application dated 17th November, 2023 shall be borne by the 1st Defendant/Applicant to be awarded to the Plaintiff/Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Order 45 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, as read with Article 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Anti – Corruption Commission v Njuguna & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 184 of 2010) [2024] KEELC 4520 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (suit concerning Land Reference Number Mombasa Municipality/Block XXVI/933). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4520/eng@2024-05-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.