Theuri & 6 others v Theuri & another (Environment & Land Case E046 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 594 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court corrected its own eviction order, sparing three plots whose sale was never disputed, showing Kenyan courts will fix obvious errors without requiring an appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the definitive part of the judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record by including plots 2, 3 and 20 which were not in dispute
Yes; the judgment itself had found that plots 2, 3 and 20 were never challenged, so ordering vacatur of all plots was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
The court reviewed its own judgment and noted that the 1st Defendant had confirmed her late husband completed the sale of plots 2, 3 and 20, and that the judgment itself appreciated that the sale of those plots was never challenged, with only plots 1 and 14-19 in dispute. Including those plots in the vacatur order was therefore a clear, self-evident error. The court reasoned that evicting owners of plots whose sale was proper and undisputed would be unfair, and that the 1st Defendant would suffer no prejudice if the orders were corrected.
Whether the applicants satisfied the grounds for review under Order 45 Rule 1(1)
Yes; the review was merited on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record.
The court set out the statutory grounds for review: discovery of new and important matter or evidence not available despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, applied for without unreasonable delay. Finding that the definitive orders had inadvertently covered plots whose sale was admitted and unchallenged, the court held the error apparent ground was satisfied and reviewed the orders accordingly.
Legal principles established
#- An application for review lies on discovery of new and important matter, or a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, without unreasonable delay.
- Where the court's own judgment confirms that certain plots were never in dispute, it is an error apparent on the face of the record to include those plots in orders requiring vacatur.
Court orders
#- 1.The court's orders requiring the Plaintiffs to vacate the property known as Shawa/Gicheha Block 12/18 (Kamwango farmers, Njoro, Nakuru) shall not apply to plot Nos 2, 3 and 20
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (with Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Theuri & 6 others v Theuri & another (Environment & Land Case E046 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 594 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on the judgment excerpt (application dated 25th November, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/594/eng@2025-02-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.