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 judgment· [2025] KEELC 3674 (KLR)

Kilongu (Chairman) & 2 others v Sanoe (Chairman) & 10 others (Environment and Land Case 39 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 3674 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
10 March 2025
AOAntony O. Ombwayo
2,397 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first-instance ruling on the Defendants/Applicants' notice of motion dated 27th January 2025 seeking review of a judgment delivered on 16th October 2024 in long-running land litigation over Maela Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073. The Applicants sought correction of the 1st Defendant's name, review of the judgment to admit a list of beneficiaries left out at the hearing, setting aside of the direction that the 17 Defendants in HCCC 89 of 1996 hold the land in trust (six of them being deceased), and an order directing the Land Registrar, Naivasha to issue titles to 601 beneficiaries. The 1st Plaintiff opposed, arguing res judicata against a similar earlier application, failure to meet the review threshold, and that the documents sought to be introduced were never filed because the Applicants' defence was struck out. The court framed two issues: whether Mongeri & Co. Advocates were properly on record, and whether review was deserved. Relying on Order 45 Rule 1(1), Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Court of Appeal decision in Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Limited, the court held that the list of members was not new evidence, no error was apparent on the face of the record, and no other sufficient reason justified review. It confirmed the incoming advocates were properly on record. The application succeeded only on prayer 3, correcting a typographical error in the 1st Defendant's name, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the threshold for review under Order 45 Rule 1(1) and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act was met

Holding

Not met; the application failed on the grounds of review

Reasoning

Review lies on discovery of new and important matter not producible with due diligence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. The Applicants' list of members was within their knowledge and attached to their defence documents; it was simply never filed because of their counsel's delay. No new evidence, no error on the record, and no other sufficient reason was shown.

p. 5
02

Whether the firm of Mongeri & Co. Advocates was properly on record post-judgment

Holding

Yes; a consent to come on record in place of Karanja Mbugua & Co. Advocates was filed on 6th February 2025

Reasoning

The Respondents objected under Order 9 Rule 9 that the incoming firm lacked leave or a duly adopted consent. The court perused the record and confirmed a consent changing advocates was in fact filed on 6th February 2025, satisfying the requirement.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for review must be specific on the ground on which it is brought, and rests on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, applied for without unreasonable delay
  • Evidence that was in a party's possession but never filed or produced at hearing because of their counsel's failure does not constitute new and important matter for review
  • An obvious typographical error in a judgment naming a party may be corrected without a full review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Prayer 3 allowed: the name of the 1st Defendant on the judgment of 16th October 2024 corrected to read Lekishon Ole Linti alias CLLR. John Ledidi in place of Lekishon Ole Rakita Sanoe, as a typographical error
  2. 2.Prayers for review, variation or setting aside of the judgment of 16th October 2024 dismissed
  3. 3.Each party to bear its own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kilongu (Chairman) & 2 others v Sanoe (Chairman) & 10 others (Environment and Land Case 39 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 3674 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3674/eng@2025-05-09

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