Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the ruling (suit commenced by Plaint dated 20th January, 2017; application dated 11th June, 2024)· [2025] KEELC 448 (KLR)

Sambu v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 5 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 448 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 February 2025
LOL. A. Omollo
4,901 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~20 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kericho landowner's attempt to reopen a compensation ruling failed because he argued the court was wrong, not that it made an obvious error.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Kericho (L. A. Omollo, J) determines the Plaintiff/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 11th June, 2024 seeking review and setting aside of the Court's orders of 16th May, 2024, under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The underlying suit concerns compulsory acquisition of portions of the Applicant's land parcels Kericho/Kipchimchim/656 and 3027 for the Kericho-Kisumu Highway interchange, in which he claims further compensation of over Kshs 111 million plus Kshs 48.6 million for a third acquisition. By its ruling of 16th May, 2024 the Court dismissed his application to further amend the Plaint, holding that it had already pronounced itself in the ruling of 29th August, 2018, that a decree had been issued and a bill of costs taxed, and that it was functus officio. The Applicant sought review on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record, contending that the 29th August, 2018 ruling was interlocutory and concerned only the third acquisition, leaving the first and second acquisitions undetermined, and that the decree of 4th October, 2018 was erroneously extracted. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants filed Grounds of Opposition and submissions, arguing the alleged error was not self-evident, that the Applicant was estopped from challenging the decree he had relied on for taxation, and that a mere erroneous decision is a matter for appeal. The Court framed a single issue: whether it should review its ruling of 16th May, 2024. Relying on the settled principles in Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, Muyodi v ICDC, Omote v Ogutu and Republic v Medical Practitioners & Dentists Board, the Court held that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require elaborate reasoning, and that a contention that a decision was erroneous is a ground of appeal, not review. The application was dismissed with costs to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an error apparent on the face of the record had been demonstrated to warrant review of the ruling of 16th May, 2024

Holding

No; the Applicant's complaint that the 16th May, 2024 ruling was erroneous does not qualify as an error apparent on the face of the record

Reasoning

Review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 is confined to discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident, capable of being seen at first glance without elaborate argument. Where a party contends the court reached the wrong conclusion or the decision was erroneous, the proper recourse is an appeal, not review. The Applicant's grievance went to the correctness of the decision, not to a self-evident error.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may only review its orders upon discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, and the application must be made without unreasonable delay
  • An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident; a contention that a decision was erroneous is a ground of appeal, not review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff/Applicant's Notice of Motion application dated 11th June, 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 80
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rules 1 & 2; Order 50 Rule 1

Cases cited (10)

  • Njoroge & 104 others (suing in representative capacity for Kariobangi South Civil Servants Estate Tenant Purchasers) v Savings & Loan Kenya Ltd & another
    [1988] eKLR
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo
    [2001] EA 170 / [2001] EA 174 (citation not consistently given)
  • National Bank of Kenya Limited v Ndungu Njau
    [1997] KECA 71 (KLR); [1997] eKLR
  • Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya
    [2019] KEHC 6379 (KLR); [2019] eKLR
  • Sardar Mohamed v Charan Singh Nand Sing and another
    (1959) EA 793
  • Hosea Nyandika Mosagwe & 2 Others v County Government of Nyamira
    [2022] eKLR
  • Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Muyodi v Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation & Anor
    [2006] 1 EA 243
  • Omote & another v Ogutu
    (Civil Appeal E005 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16441 (KLR) (19 December, 2022)
  • Republic v Medical Practitioners & Dentists Board & Another; MIO1 on behalf of MIO2 (a Minor) & another (Interested Party); Kingángá (Ex parte)
    (Miscellaneous Civil Application 59 & 63 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2021] KEHC 298 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45 Rule 1 and Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sambu v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 5 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 448 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the ruling (suit commenced by Plaint dated 20th January, 2017; application dated 11th June, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/448/eng@2025-02-06

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