Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment beyond the parties' designations· [2024] KEELC 6973 (KLR)

Republic v Kajiado North Land Dispute Tribunal; Sangaire (Interested Party); Parantoi (Exparte) (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 27 of 2018) [2024] KEELC 6973 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (Kajiado)
17 October 2024
2,068 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a Notice of Motion dated 19th December 2023 by Kili Ole Sankaire, the Interested Party, seeking review and/or setting aside of the judgment dated 27th July 2023, which had adopted a surveyor's report over land parcels Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/26 and 27, plus an order for an independent surveyor's fresh site visit and report. The motion was brought under Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 2 and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, on the sole ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. The Exparte Applicant, Sailoji Ole Parantoi, opposed the application, contending that no error was identified, that the applicant was present at and participated in the original site visit, that the affidavit was mere dissatisfaction with previous advocates, and that a re-survey would be res judicata and an abuse of process. The court framed two issues: whether the judgment contained an error apparent on the record, and costs. Examining the survey report of 25th May 2022 adopted in the judgment, the court found the Interested Party listed as the fourth of fifteen attendees, identified by identity card number, contradicting his claim of absence. Applying National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau and Mativo J's decision in Republic v Medical Practitioners & Dentists Board, the court held that an error apparent must be prima facie visible and self-evident; none had been pointed out. It also declined to entertain the grounds of new and important matter or sufficient reason raised only in submissions. The application was dismissed and, as the parties are neighbours, no orders as to costs were made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of 27th July 2023

Holding

No error apparent was identified; the record (survey report of 25th May 2022) shows the Interested Party was present at the site visit

Reasoning

The court examined the survey report adopted in the judgment, which listed Kili Ole Sankaire among fifteen attendees, identified by his identity card number. His denial of attendance was therefore contradicted by the record. Following Mativo J and National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau, an error for review must be self-evident; none was pointed out.

p. 5
02

Whether grounds of new and important matter or sufficient reason, raised only in submissions, could be considered

Holding

No - the Notice of Motion raised only the error-apparent ground; new grounds in submissions could not be entertained

Reasoning

The court held that the only ground in the Notice of Motion was the error on the face of the judgment, and the Interested Party's submissions on the other two grounds were misguided and could not be considered by the court.

p. 5
03

Whether a fresh, independent survey should be ordered

Holding

Refused; the applicant participated in the original survey and a repeat survey would abuse process

Reasoning

The court found the averments in the supporting affidavit were complaints about previous advocates and dissatisfaction with the outcome, not proof that the report was prepared in secrecy. The applicant was listed as present at the site visit, so repeating the process would merely delay execution.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An error apparent on the face of the record must be prima facie visible and not require detailed examination or elaborate argument
  • Review may be granted only to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court; it is not a vehicle to relitigate a different view of the matter

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 19th December 2023 is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 3A, 80
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 45 rules 1 and 2; Order 51 Rule 1

Cases cited (18)

  • National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau
    Civil Appeal No. 2111 of 1996 / [1996] KLR 469
  • Julius Kibiwott Tuwei v Reuben Argut & 7 Others
    [2022] eKLR
  • Shah v Mbogo
    [1979] EA 116
  • John Mukuha Mburu v Charles Mwenga Mburu
    [2019] eKLR
  • Wachira Karani v Bildad Wachira
    [2016] eKLR
  • Tokesi Mambili and Others v Simion Litsanga
  • Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Exparte Apollo Mboya
    [2019] eKLR
  • Evan Bwire v Andrew Aginda
    Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2006
  • Stephen Githua Kimani v Nancy Wanjira Waruinge T/a Providence Auctioneers
    [2016] eKLR / [2019] eKLR
  • Sarder Mohammed v Charan Singh Nand Singh and Another
    [1959] EA 793
  • Republic v Medical Practioneers & Dentists Board & Another; M101 on behalf of M102 (a Minor) Interested Party; King'ang'a (Exparte)
    KEHC 298 KLR
  • Twaher Abdul Karim Mohammed v IEBC & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Ann Wairimu Wanjohi v James Wambiru Muikabi
    [2021] eKLR
  • Lelei & 2 Others v Kimetto & 30 Others
    KEELC 1220 (KLR)
  • School Management Committee & another v Ezekiel Maritim and 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • John Maritime Florence Services Limited & Another v Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure & 3 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Re: Estate of the late Ismael Muchiri Nkinyangi (Deceased)
    [2021] eKLR
  • Murican Transport Limited v Hunkar Trading Co. Ltd
    HCCC (Milimani) No.531 of 2006
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and Order 45 rules 1 and 2, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Kajiado North Land Dispute Tribunal; Sangaire (Interested Party); Parantoi (Exparte) (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 27 of 2018) [2024] KEELC 6973 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment beyond the parties' designations. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6973/eng@2024-10-17

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