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 30.5.2024 (arising from judgment delivered 31.5.2023)· [2024] KEELC 6257 (KLR)

Mwei & another v Chumba (Environment & Land Case 53 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 6257 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 September 2024
1,704 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a late land judgment review, confirming that delays and disputed findings belong on appeal, not review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Notice of motion dated 30.5.2024 in which the Defendant Judgment Debtor/Applicant sought review of a judgment and decree dated 31st May 2023, contending that the court failed to consider the decision in ELC No. 51 of 2012 (which fixed the Deceased's entitlement at 187.436 acres rather than 191 acres), that plot 70 belonged to St. Brigids Catholic Church Sambul rather than the Deceased, and that he had discovered new evidence in the form of a certificate of confirmation showing Thomas Chepkunur Lagat had purchased 10 acres from the Deceased. The Plaintiffs Decree Holders/Respondents opposed, arguing the application was frivolous, brought after unexplained delay of over a year, that the documents were already part of the Applicant's bundle, and that the issues should have been raised on appeal. The Applicant relied on Order 45(1)(a)(b) and the Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board decision; the Respondents relied on Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates v National Bank Limited. The court framed three issues: error on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence, and delay. It found the delay of over one year unexplained and the Applicant untruthful; that acreage was never an issue in the suit and erroneous findings are grounds for appeal, not review; and that the certificate of confirmation was known to the Applicant, having been addressed in the judgment itself. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Unreasonable delay in bringing review

Holding

Application filed over a year after judgment with an unexplained and untruthful explanation for the delay fails the requirement of promptness

Reasoning

Judgment was delivered on 31.5.2023 and the application filed in June 2024. The Applicant claimed he discovered the certificate of confirmation on 26.5.2024, but that still left over a year of unexplained delay. His explanation that an initial Advocate failed to file a review did not make sense, and the court found the Applicant not truthful.

p. 3
02

Error on the face of the record

Holding

No error apparent on the record; alleged errors of acreage and ownership were matters for appeal, not review

Reasoning

The issue of acreage was never in issue in this suit, which concerned hiving of plot 69 from the Deceased's land. Any grievance over the decision in ELC 51 of 2012 should have been pursued on appeal, and a merely erroneous finding does not qualify as an error apparent on the record.

p. 4
03

Discovery of new and important evidence

Holding

No discovery of new evidence; all documents were already known to the Applicant

Reasoning

The certificate of confirmation was issued on 20.1.2020 and was known to the Applicant, whose Advocate had relied on it to challenge the Respondents' locus standi, an issue the court addressed in the 31.5.2023 judgment. The judgment in ELC 51 of 2012 was also part of his documents.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An erroneous finding of fact is not a ground for review; it can only form a good ground for appeal
  • Review applications must be brought without unreasonable delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicant's Notice of motion dated 30.5.2024 seeking review of the judgment and decree of 31st May 2023 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45(1)(a)(b)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80

Cases cited (2)

  • Republic vs Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others
    (2018) eKLR
  • Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates vs National Bank Limited
    (2020) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 45(1)(a)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act (referred to in Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwei & another v Chumba (Environment & Land Case 53 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 6257 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of motion dated 30.5.2024 (arising from judgment delivered 31.5.2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6257/eng@2024-09-25

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