Majani Estates Limited v Nkonge & 8 others (Environment and Land Case 8 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 5596 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to set aside a land judgment won three years earlier, ruling that losing touch with your lawyer is not a valid reason to reopen a case.
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 application satisfies the criteria for setting aside/varying a regular interpartes judgment
Key legal issues
#Whether a regular interpartes judgment may be set aside more than three years after delivery on grounds of inadequate communication between parties and their joint advocates
The application failed; dissatisfaction with counsel's conduct is not a ground for review of a regular interpartes judgment
The judgment of 29/11/2021 was regular and interpartes: all defendants entered appearance, filed joint pleadings, participated through their joint advocate in trial, submissions and delivery of judgment, and even filed a notice of appeal. Setting aside such a judgment requires established review grounds - error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter. The applicants demonstrated neither; only inadequate communication with counsel was alleged.
Legal principles established
#- Review is available only on established grounds - error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter - not merely to re-hear a case.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 4/4/2025 is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.The applicants shall bear costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court to review/set aside its own regular inter partes judgment; applicants invoked Articles 50 and 25 of the Constitution of Kenya
Relief refused
#Setting aside or varying the judgment entered on 29th November 2021, the decree and subsequent orders
The judgment was a regular interpartes judgment and no ground for review was demonstrated
De novo hearing of the suit at the instance of the 5th, 6th and 8th defendants
Dissatisfaction with joint advocates' handling of the defence is not a ground for setting aside a regular interpartes judgment
Costs
The applicants shall bear costs of the application.
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.
In the end, the notice of motion dated 4/4/2025 is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit. The applicants shall bear costs of the application.
the finding of the court is that the criteria for setting aside a regular interpartes judgment has not been met
The judgment rendered on 29/11/2021, which is the subject of the application under consideration, was not an exparte or a default judgment. By and large, it was a regular interpartes judgment.
If the applicants are dissatisfied with the way their joint advocates handled their defence, that is not a proper ground for setting aside a regular interpartes judgment entered after an interpartes hearing.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment does not state the case title or case number of the underlying suit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Majani Estates Limited v Nkonge & 8 others (Environment and Land Case 8 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 5596 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5596/eng@2025-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.