Mosonk v Changwony (Environment and Land Case 25 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 5428 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Defendants'/Applicants' application for review of the ruling of 28th March 2025 is merited
- 2.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the court's order for deposit of security for costs of Kshs. 200,000/= in the stay ruling was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 45 Rule 1(1)
The application for review was not merited; the security for costs order was a discretionary condition for stay of execution, not an error apparent on the face of the record, and questioning it required a process of reasoning beyond the scope of review
The court reiterated that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require a long drawn process of reasoning. It held that ordering security for costs as a condition of stay of execution was a discretionary decision, and a party who disagrees with the discretion exercised must pursue an appeal, not review. Disagreement with a possible view is not an error apparent on the face of the record.
Legal principles established
#- An order for security for costs made as a condition for stay of execution pending appeal is an exercise of the court's discretion and is not an error apparent on the face of the record merely because the underlying judgment awarded no costs
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review of the ruling of 28th March 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to be borne by the Applicants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Review of the ruling of 28th March 2025 so as to vary and do away with the order for deposit of security for costs of Kshs. 200,000/=
The order for security for costs was an exercise of the court's discretion in granting stay of execution pending appeal and did not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record
Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal
The court instead ordered the Applicants to bear the costs of the application
Costs
Costs of the application to be borne by the Defendants/Applicants
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Where an error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.
The fact that a party believes that the Court should have reached a difierent conclusion or that the decision was erroneous are matters fit for appeal rather than review which is limited in scope.
by the court having directed payment of security for costs does not amount to an error or mistake on the face of record. This is because the same was the court's exercise of its discretion in the conditions to be met in granting stay of execution pending appeal.
In view of the above, I find that the orders for review is not merited. Cost of the application to be borne by the Applicants. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, the name of the Plaintiff/Respondent, or a neutral citation
The judgment inconsistently refers to the Applicants as 'the Appellant' in the analysis although this is a review application, not an appeal
Paragraph numbering is irregular; paragraph 15 appears mislabelled, with numbering jumping into paragraph 21 and 22 within a quotation block
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mosonk v Changwony (Environment and Land Case 25 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 5428 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5428/eng@2025-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.