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 AllowedPetition (application dated 16/4/24)· [2025] KEELC 3455 (KLR)

Kariuki Enterprises Limited v Kenya National Highways Authority & another (Environment & Land Petition 15 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3455 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 April 2025
JKJ. G. Kemei
2,104 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court corrected its own contradictory judgment, confirming that compulsory acquisition disputes belong before the Land Acquisition Tribunal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, whose land was purportedly compulsorily acquired by the 1st Respondent with compensation of Kshs 59 Million remitted to the 2nd Respondent (National Land Commission) but unpaid, filed this application dated 16/4/24 seeking review, setting aside or vacating the court's judgment of 22/2/24 which had referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Tribunal while simultaneously striking out the petition. The application, unopposed by the respondents, was canvassed by written submissions. The court set out the statutory framework for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and applied the Indian authorities Ajit Kumar Rath v State of Orisa and West Bengal v Kamal Sengupta on the test of an error apparent on the face of the record - an error that is obvious, self-evident and requiring no elaborate argument, and noting that a review court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment. The court found the judgment of 22/2/24 contained two conflicting orders: the reference to the LAT and the striking out of the petition, leaving the petitioner with no proceedings to place before the tribunal. Rather than a full review, the court invoked the slip rule under Section 99 CPA to rectify the judgment by deleting the paragraph striking out the petition. The final orders now read that the petition stands referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal for hearing and determination. No orders as to costs were made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the judgment of 22/2/24 contained an error apparent on the face of the record

Holding

Yes - the judgment contained two conflicting orders, referring the petition to the LAT while simultaneously striking it out

Reasoning

The judgment referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Tribunal for hearing yet also struck out the petition, leaving the petitioner with no proceedings to refer to the tribunal and no forum for his grievances. The contradiction is patent and self-evident without elaborate argument, satisfying the Order 45 threshold. The court exercised the slip rule under Section 99 CPA to remove the striking-out paragraph rather than a full review.

p. 5
02

Scope of the court's power of review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 CPR

Holding

Review is statutory and limited to discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, applied without unreasonable delay; it is not a fresh hearing

Reasoning

Relying on Section 80 CPA, Order 45 Rules 1 & 2 CPR, and the Indian authorities Ajit Kumar Rath and West Bengal v Kamal Sengupta, the court restated that review cannot be a pretext for rehearing or correcting an erroneous view, and an error requiring long debate or reasoning does not qualify. A review court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Review is a statutory creation and an error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious and self-evident, not requiring elaborate argument
  • In compulsory acquisition matters, primary jurisdiction rests with the Land Acquisition Tribunal under section 133C of the Land Act, which may hear complaints arising under Articles 23(2) and 47(3) of the Constitution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Pursuant to the slip rule in Section 99 of the CPA, the court rectifies its judgment by removing the paragraph reading 'In the upshot the petition herein is hereby struck out'
  2. 2.The petition stands referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal for hearing and determination
  3. 3.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 22, 23(2), 47(3), 48, 50(1), 159(2)(d)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 80, 99
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rules 1 & 2
  • Land Act, 2012Section 133C
  • Fair Administrative Action Actframework provision

Cases cited (3)

  • Abidha Nicholus v AG & others
    PET 7/2023
  • Ajit Kumar Rath v State of Orisa & Others
    9 Supreme Court Cases 596
  • West Bengal v Kamal Sengupta
    AIR 2009 SC 476
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules (with Section 99 CPA slip rule); Articles 22, 48, 50(1), 159(2)(d) of the Constitution cited in the application

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kariuki Enterprises Limited v Kenya National Highways Authority & another (Environment & Land Petition 15 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3455 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition (application dated 16/4/24). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3455/eng@2025-04-29

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