Njoroge v Kimondo (Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Stephen Kimondo Kamau - Deceased) (Environment & Land Case 32 of 2012) [2025] KEELC 534 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court corrected a costs error in its own judgment and stopped an unlawful auction of land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the discrepancy between paragraph 77 and dispositive order (h) of the judgment of 28th April 2022 amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review
Yes - the dispositive order (h) contradicted the Court's finding at paragraph 77 on costs, constituting an error apparent on the record warranting review and amendment
The Court found it overlooked dispositive order (h) which made the plaintiff in the plaint solely liable for costs, contradicting paragraph 77 which condemned the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the Counter-Claim. The Court held this was an error apparent on the record and exercised its discretion under Section 80 and Order 45, guided by the overriding objective of the Environment and Land Court Act, to amend the costs order.
Whether the warrants of execution issued on 13th September 2024 should be set aside and annulled
Yes - following the allowed review, the plaintiff was in contravention of the judgment and decree of 28th April 2022 and the warrants of execution were annulled
Having allowed the review application, the Court found the plaintiff's execution application contravened the judgment. The plaintiff, having lost the suit, was not entitled to execute against the successful defendant, and the execution would have nullified both the Environment and Land Court and Court of Appeal judgments.
Legal principles established
#- The Slip Rule permits a court to correct errors apparent on the face of a judgment without altering the substance of the judgment or sitting on appeal over its own judgment
- Correction of clerical errors falls within the exceptions to the functus officio doctrine
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act gives the power of review while Order 45 restricts the grounds for review
- A review is not an appeal and must be confined to error apparent on the face of the record
- An application for execution can only be made by the decree holder and not the judgment debtor
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 12th June, 2024 be and is hereby found to have merit and the same is allowed in its entirety
- 2.The Notice of Motion application dated 2nd October, 2024 be and is hereby found to have merit and the same is allowed in its entirety
- 3.The Court reviews and varies its Orders dated 28th April, 2022 to amend the Order on Costs
- 4.The dispositive order (h) is amended to read: 'The Plaintifi in the counter claim shall have the costs of the Plaint and the Counter Claim to be paid jointly by the 1st and 2nd Defendant in the Counter claim.'
- 5.The Warrants of Execution issued on 13th September, 2024 are set aside and annulled
- 6.There shall be costs to this Application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 80 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21; Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 34, 38 and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge v Kimondo (Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Stephen Kimondo Kamau - Deceased) (Environment & Land Case 32 of 2012) [2025] KEELC 534 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/534/eng@2025-02-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.