Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 30th July 2024· [2025] KEELC 3195 (KLR)

Multi –Equipped Limited v Registrar of Titles Nairobi & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3195 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 April 2025
TMT. Murigi
1,824 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to review its earlier ruling, confirming that disagreement with a judge's decision is grounds for appeal, not review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex Parte Applicant, Francis Nyaga, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 30th July 2024 under Orders 45 and 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking review of the court's ruling delivered on 2nd July 2024, which had dismissed his substantive judicial review motion seeking prohibition, mandamus and certiorari to quash the Respondents' decision in Gazette Notice No. 11201 revoking his titles to parcels I.R.204894 and I.R.204895. He argued the ruling contained an error apparent on the face of the record because the court failed to consider that the register was originally in his name and failed to consider related proceedings (ELC E204 of 2020 and Civil Appeal E409 of 2022), and that he feared the properties would be sold. The Respondents did not respond. The court framed a single issue: whether the ruling of 2nd July 2024 should be reviewed. Applying Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1, and the authorities on error apparent on the face of the record, the court held the alleged error must be self-evident and beyond debate; the applicant's complaints amounted to dissatisfaction with the court's findings, a ground for appeal not review. The court further noted the properties were already subject to a Court of Appeal injunction of 17th February 2023, defeating the claim of impending sale. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ruling of 2nd July 2024 contained an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review

Holding

No error apparent was established; the applicant's grievance amounted to dissatisfaction with the court's findings, which is a matter for appeal, not review.

Reasoning

Review is governed by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The error alleged must be so glaring that there can be no debate about it. The applicant's complaint that the court should have considered other grounds and arrived at a different conclusion is a mere erroneous decision, not a self-evident error. Further, the properties are already restrained from dealing by a Court of Appeal injunction, negating the claimed urgency.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and obvious, not requiring elaborate argument; a possible view adopted by the court is not such an error.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 30th July 2024 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 45, 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Multi –Equipped Limited v Registrar of Titles Nairobi & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3195 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 30th July 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3195/eng@2025-04-04

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