Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (Notice of application dated December 19, 2024)· [2025] KEELC 3419 (KLR)

Gachanja Muhoro & Sons Limited t/a Easy Mart Supermarket v Kamau & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 497 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 3419 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
30 April 2025
AOA. Omollo
1,554 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, Geofirey Muiruri Gachanja, moved the court by notice of application dated December 19, 2024 seeking review and variation of the order of October 31, 2024, which had directed him to deposit an additional Kshs 6,037,772.40 into a joint interest-earning account within 60 days in compliance with conditional stay orders issued on March 14, 2024. He sought instead to furnish a bank guarantee of Kshs 13,000,000 from Equity Bank Kenya Limited, Matuu Branch, covering the full decretal sum plus interest, and further sought release of the Kshs 4,065,840 already deposited. The application was grounded on financial hardship and anchored on section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The defendants opposed, characterising the application as an abuse of process and an attempt to reopen orders long in place, contrary to the finality of litigation. The court applied the settled grounds of review, inferring that the plaintiff relied on 'sufficient cause'. While accepting that the plaintiff faced financial constraints and had secured a bank guarantee, the court held that equity required diligence and clean hands. It allowed the application in part only: the October 31, 2024 order was varied so that within 21 days the plaintiff was to procure, at his cost and to the defendants' satisfaction, a bank guarantee of Kshs 8,934,160 in place of the cash deposit; the deposited Kshs 4,065,840 was not to be released; in default, execution to issue; and costs of the application were awarded to the defendants in any event. Judgment delivered at Nairobi on April 30, 2025 by A. Omollo, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court could review its order of October 31, 2024 substituting a bank guarantee for the cash deposit

Holding

Allowed in part: the order was varied on the ground of sufficient reason (financial hardship), but on terms - a bank guarantee of Kshs 8,934,160 within 21 days

Reasoning

The court inferred that the unspecified ground of review was 'sufficient cause'. Finding the plaintiff faced financial difficulty and had secured a bank guarantee from Equity Bank, the court exercised its discretion to vary the order, but did so only in respect of the outstanding amount, holding the plaintiff to diligence and clean hands. The released deposit was refused.

p. 4
02

Whether the deposited Kshs 4,065,840 should be released

Holding

Refused

Reasoning

The court reasoned that money already deposited pursuant to a court order could not be withdrawn merely because alternative security was offered; financial hardship explained inability to raise the additional sum, not entitlement to recover monies already provided.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Review under section 80 CPA and Order 45 is limited to discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, and must be made without unreasonable delay
  • A litigant seeking the court's discretion must come with clean hands and be diligent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The order dated 31.10.2024 requiring a cash deposit of Kshs 6,037,772.40 plus interest is varied: the applicants shall within 21 days procure at their cost, and to the satisfaction of the Respondents, a bank guarantee in the sum of Kshs 8,934,160
  2. 2.The sum of Kshs 4,065,840 already deposited in the joint account shall not be released back to the applicants
  3. 3.In default of procuring the bank guarantee, execution to issue for the outstanding amount and the amount deposited in the joint account
  4. 4.Costs of the application to the Respondents in any event

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 50 rule 6

Cases cited (5)

  • Cape Suppliers Limited v Sinohydro Corporation Limited
    (Civil Case 848 of 2010) [2023] KEHC 2666(KLR)
  • Benjo (K) Ltd v Rono
    (Civil Miscellaneous application E010 of 2023)[2024]KEHC 1470(KLR)
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others
    [2018] Eklr
  • Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya
    [2019] Eklr, JR Misc application No 317 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gachanja Muhoro & Sons Limited t/a Easy Mart Supermarket v Kamau & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 497 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 3419 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of application dated December 19, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3419/eng@2025-04-30

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