Seii & 10 others v Nairobi City County Government & others (Environment & Land Petition E019 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 109 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi developer's bid to overturn a court order capping its building at four floors failed because disagreement with a decision is grounds for appeal, not review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether failure to annex a formally extracted, Deputy Registrar-certified order renders a review application fatally defective
Not fatal; the typed and signed ruling attached was sufficient to identify the orders complained of and caused no prejudice
The court accepted that a formal decree or order is ordinarily a prerequisite for review, enabling the court to identify what aggrieves the applicant. However, annexure JQ-1, being typed and signed, allowed the court to establish the impugned orders. Relying on sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159 of the Constitution, the court held that procedural technicalities should not derail justice where no prejudice results.
Whether the pendency of the Petitioners' appeal in the Court of Appeal bars the Applicant's review application
No; under Order 45 rule 2, a non-appealing party may seek review unless the grounds are common to the appeal
Order 45 rule 2 permits a party who is not appealing to apply for review notwithstanding another party's pending appeal, except where the grounds of appeal are common to the applicant or the applicant could present the same case to the appellate court. The Petitioners did not plead that the review grounds were the same as their appeal grounds, so the sub judice objection failed.
Whether the grounds advanced amounted to mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or sufficient cause for review
They did not; the complaints went to the merits of the ruling and belong on appeal
The Applicant's complaints - that it had all requisite approvals, that construction had not commenced, and that the court reached the wrong conclusion - amounted to asking the court to reconsider the evidence and reverse its decision. Such grievances are not self-evident errors but disagreements with the merits, which review cannot cure. Sufficient reason must also be analogous to the grounds in Order 45 Rule 1.
Legal principles established
#- An error or mistake apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument; a belief that the court should have reached a different conclusion is a matter for appeal, not review
- 'Any other sufficient reason' for review must be analogous or ejusdem generis to the grounds specified in Order 45 Rule 1
- A party who is not appealing may apply for review notwithstanding the pendency of another party's appeal, unless the grounds are common or the applicant can present the same case to the appellate court
- Failure to annex a formally extracted order is not fatal where the attached ruling is typed and signed and no prejudice is caused, in line with the oxygen principles and Article 159
Court orders
#- 1.The 9th Respondent/Applicant's notice of motion dated 18th September 2024 seeking review of the ruling of 16th September 2024 is dismissed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 - application for review of the court's own orders
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Seii & 10 others v Nairobi City County Government & others (Environment & Land Petition E019 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 109 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 18th September 2024 in the Petition (ruling of 16th September 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/109/eng@2025-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.