Mageeta Investments Limited v Sanjes Company Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E082 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 3350 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi landowner lost its bid to revive a suit dismissed after missing a 2021 court hearing, because it showed no valid reason for review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff established grounds for review of the order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution
No - the grounds in Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 were not made out, and the dismissal under Order 17 Rule 4 followed the plaintiff's own failure to attend and prosecute
The court reviewed Section 80 and Order 45 Rule 1, and authorities confining review to new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason, without unreasonable delay. The applicant relied on the non-existence of the 1st defendant and dual registration, but the decisive event was its failure to attend court on 16th December 2021 and produce evidence. There was accordingly nothing in the decision of 16th December 2021 fit for review, and mistakes of the previous advocates could not found reinstatement.
Whether the applicant is entitled to an injunction
Not determined - the court declined to reach the second issue after finding no merit in the review application
Having found the review application devoid of merit, the court held there was no need to delve into the question of the injunction, so the injunctive relief sought pending determination of the suit fell away with the dismissal of the application.
Whether the firm of Rashid Ngaira & Associates could come on record after judgment
Yes - leave granted under Order 9 Rule 9 since judgment had been delivered on 16th December 2021
Because judgment had been delivered in the matter, the incoming firm required an order of the court to represent the plaintiff after judgment. Prayer 2 was therefore allowed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Legal principles established
#- A dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 4, where the plaintiff did not attend court or produce evidence, cannot be revisited by way of review because there is no decision or element fit for review
- Review lies only on discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, and review proceedings are not an appeal
- Not every mistake by an advocate is a ground for setting aside orders of the court
- A firm of advocates coming on record after judgment requires an order of the court under Order 9 Rule 9
Court orders
#- 1.Prayer 2 of the notice of motion allowed pursuant to Order 9 Rule 9 - leave granted to the firm of Rashid Ngaira & Associates Advocates to come on record for the plaintiff after judgment
- 2.The notice of motion dated 13th January 2025 otherwise dismissed with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; 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, "Mageeta Investments Limited v Sanjes Company Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E082 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 3350 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3350/eng@2025-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.