Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC NO 1206 OF 2015· [2025] KEELC 6350 (KLR)

MICHAEL NJUGUNA MURATHA & 20 others v MARGARET NGENDO WAMBAKI & 4 others

Environment and Land Court
30 January 2025
JOJUDY OMANGE
2,260 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to review or overturn a land judgment, ruling that wrong dates and later medical reports are not enough to reopen decided cases.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court (Judy Omange, J) determines two applications arising from a judgment delivered on 21st September 2023 by Lady Justice Komingoi in a dispute over RUIRU/RUIRU EAST BLOCK 2/908 and 909. In the original judgment, the court found the Plaintiffs were victims of the 2nd and 5th Defendants' actions, ordered the 5th Defendant to refund them the value of the plots, directed the Plaintiffs to vacate within 150 days, and held that the 3rd and 4th Defendants had proved valid purchases from the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiffs then applied for review, alleging errors apparent on the face of the record, chiefly that the court misapprehended the date of confirmation of the grant (3rd February 2006 versus 30th May 1996). Separately, the guardian ad litem of the 1st Defendant (already joined by consent on 27th January 2025) sought to set aside the judgment on grounds of the 1st Defendant's mental incapacity. The court applied Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1, and the test in Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo (2001) EA 173 for errors apparent on the face of the record. It held that the alleged error did not aid the Plaintiffs because the judgment rested on broader grounds, including that the final distribution vested the suit property in the 1st, not the 2nd, Defendant. It further found the medical report did not prove incapacity at the time of the sale and that no defence was disclosed. Both applications were dismissed with costs on 30th January 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an error apparent on the face of the record existed in the judgment of 21st September 2023

Holding

No error apparent on the face of the record was established; the alleged error on the grant confirmation date did not undermine the judgment, which rested on reasons transcending the certificate of confirmation of grant

Reasoning

The court found the judgment did not rest solely on the date of confirmation of the grant. It also found the suit property was bequeathed to the 1st Defendant, not the 2nd Defendant who sold it. The certificate annexed by the guardian ad litem bore the very date of 3rd February 2006 complained of, and confirmed the distribution did not vest the suit property in the 2nd Defendant.

p. 9
02

Whether the judgment should be set aside for the 1st Defendant's mental incapacity and lack of hearing

Holding

The application failed; the medical evidence did not establish incapacity at the time of the 2016 sale and no defence was disclosed

Reasoning

The medical report dated 1st February 2023 post-dated the sale by several years and did not prove the 1st Defendant lacked capacity when selling to the 3rd Defendant. The guardian ad litem offered no explanation for the delay in seeking guardianship until September 2024 and did not indicate any defence to the suit.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • A review lies only for discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason; a mere erroneous decision or a possible alternative view is not such an error
  • A court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot reopen issues already determined by another court of equal jurisdiction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Both applications (the Plaintiffs' application dated 16th February 2024 and the guardian ad litem's application dated 9th January 2025) dismissed with costs
  2. 2.The earlier application dated 26th February 2024 marked as spent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 45 Rule 1

Cases cited (1)

  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo
    (2001) EA 173
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (review jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "MICHAEL NJUGUNA MURATHA & 20 others v MARGARET NGENDO WAMBAKI & 4 others", Case Analysis (2025). ELC NO 1206 OF 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6350/eng@2025-01-30

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