Okiru & 4 others v Ombangai; Omukaga (Applicant) (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 244 (KLR)

Although Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1(1) refer to 'any person', the court held the legislature could not have intended a stranger to review a judgment. Relying by analogy on the Supreme Court's decision in George Peter Kaluma, the court found that allowing a non-party to review a judgment would undermine the sanctity of a suit already determined as between the contesting parties. The Applicant, who was neither plaintiff nor defendant in the trial court nor a party to the appeal, found himself in a similar 'cul-de-sac'.

The court restated the three grounds for review - discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason - and the requirement to file without unreasonable delay. The application was filed nine months after the judgment, a delay the Applicant did not explain. Further, the Applicant never specified which ground he relied on, and the review jurisdiction is not carte blanche but must be exercised within statutory perimeters.

The Applicant was not a party in the trial suit where the Respondent was plaintiff and the Appellants were defendants. No orders were sought against him and he was not among the defendants in whose favour counter-claim orders could be made. Adding him would introduce a new cause of action or alter the nature of the suit. A plaintiff, as dominus litis, chooses whom to sue and cannot be forced to sue anyone.