Kamakil v Korir & another (Environment & Land Case E018 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3259 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenya court changed a land possession order after learning a government official had been misled about who actually occupied the plot.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Defendant met the threshold for review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1 CPR
The application met the 'discovery of new and important matter' ground: the Assistant Chief's clarification that he had never visited the suit land and had been misled established that the court's 8th May 2024 possession finding was based on incorrect information.
The court reconsidered the basis of its 8th May 2024 status quo order, which rested on testimony of the Area Assistant Chief that the Plaintiff was in possession. Upon being summoned, the Assistant Chief clarified he had been misled, had not personally visited the land, and later produced a report confirming the 1st Defendant (through his lessee) was in possession since 2021. The court held this was new and important matter not within the witness's knowledge when the order issued, satisfying Section 80 and Order 45 Rule 1, and that correcting the error served the interest of justice.
The sanctity of court orders
Courts punish contempt to uphold their dignity and the rule of law; orders must be respected, but this principle did not defeat review where the underlying order rested on misinformation.
Citing Kenyan, South African, Canadian and other authorities, the court affirmed that obedience to court orders underpins the rule of law. However, on the facts the Plaintiff, through his agents, had misled the Assistant Chief, so the 1st Defendant's application was not an attempt to sanitize disobedience but a legitimate request to correct an error. The court found the Plaintiff was seeking to have the 1st Defendant punished for holding a factually incorrect position that the Plaintiff himself had created.
Legal principles established
#- Misrepresentation to the court by a witness, resulting in orders based on incorrect facts, may constitute discovery of new and important matter justifying review.
- Court orders must be obeyed to preserve judicial authority and the rule of law.
Court orders
#- 1.The status quo orders of 8th May 2024 remain in place, with the party in possession as at 8th May 2024 being the 1st Defendant and/or his agents, declared the rightful person in occupation of the suit land until the case is heard and determined
- 2.Mention on 3rd April 2025 for further directions
- 3.The Respondent (Plaintiff) to bear the costs of the Application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamakil v Korir & another (Environment & Land Case E018 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3259 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3259/eng@2025-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.