Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedBPRT Case No. E 175/2023 (application dated 22nd May, 2025)· [2025] KEELC 6684 (KLR)

Jimmy & 3 others v Kiprono & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E060 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6684 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 October 2025
1,758 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that complaints a judge ignored your submissions belong in an appeal, not a review application, and dismissed the case with costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st Applicant, John Mwangi Karanja, moved the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru by notice of motion dated 22nd May, 2025 seeking review, setting aside and/or variation of the court's ruling of 9th May, 2025, which had dismissed his earlier application dated 19th December, 2024 seeking leave to appeal out of time against a decision of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal (Nakuru BPRT Case No. E 175/2023) delivered on 22nd March, 2024. In the alternative, he sought fresh leave to appeal out of time. He attributed the delay to previous counsel's negligence and alleged errors apparent on the face of the ruling, principally its failure to consider his submissions dated 28th April, 2025, and the discriminatory execution of a 24-hour eviction notice naming eight persons but affecting only him. The 3rd Respondent opposed, contending there was no error apparent on the record, that the court was functus officio, that the Applicant should have appealed the 9th May, 2025 ruling, and that the matter was overtaken by events. No submissions were filed by either side. The court identified one issue: whether the application was merited. Applying Order 45 Rule 1(1) and the authorities on error apparent on the face of the record (Muyodi v ICDC; Nyamogo v Kogo; Kingángá Exparte), the court held that the alleged errors required reasoning to establish and were not self-evident; the Applicant's remedy was an appeal, not review. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the alleged failure of the court to consider submissions dated 28th April, 2025 constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review

Holding

It does not; discerning whether the submissions were considered requires reasoning, which is outside the review jurisdiction

Reasoning

The court applied Order 45 Rule 1 and the Muyodi test distinguishing a mere erroneous decision from an error apparent on the face of the record. It found the earlier submissions of 22nd January, 2025 different in form from those dated 28th April, 2025, and held that determining whether the new submissions required consideration would involve reasoning, defeating the self-evidence requirement for review.

p. 4
02

Whether the eviction notice naming 8 persons but affecting only the 1st Applicant was a reviewable error

Holding

Not determined as a reviewable error; the application was dismissed in its entirety

Reasoning

The court framed this as one of the 1st Applicant's claimed errors but, having found that the alleged errors require reasoning rather than being self-evident on the face of the record, it dismissed the whole application without finding any reviewable error.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require a long-drawn process of reasoning; where a possible view was adopted, it is not an error apparent on the face of the record.
  • A complaint that the court failed to consider submissions is properly a ground of appeal, not a ground for review.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 22nd May, 2025 for review is dismissed with costs
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 3rd Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 1(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Muyodi v Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation & Anor
    [2006] 1 EA 243
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo v Kogo
    [2001] EA 174
  • Republic v Medical Practitioners & Dentists Board & Another; MIO1 on behalf of MIO2 (a Minor) & another (Interested Party); Kingángá (Exparte)
    (Miscellaneous Civil Application 59 & 63 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2021] KEHC 298 (KLR)
On appeal from
Business Premises Rent Tribunal (Nakuru BPRT Case No. E 175/2023) - background only; the application was brought in the ELC itself
E 175/2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules - review jurisdiction of the court that made the order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jimmy & 3 others v Kiprono & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E060 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6684 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). BPRT Case No. E 175/2023 (application dated 22nd May, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6684/eng@2025-10-02

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