Elangata Wuas Group Ranch (Suing through it Registered Group Ranch Officials) v County Government of Kajiado & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 443A of 2017) [2025] KEELC 6978 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court overturned its own Kajiado land judgment because it ignored the county government's constitutional planning powers, ordering the whole case heard afresh.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the failure of the judgment of 13th May 2024 to consider the County Government's constitutional and statutory planning mandate and its role as custodian of public land constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review
Yes. The omission to consider express constitutional and statutory provisions central to the dispute was a manifest, self-evident error justifying review under Order 45 Rule 1
The Court recalled that Article 186 read with Part 2, paragraph 8 of the Fourth Schedule vests county planning and development in county governments, buttressed by Section 104(1) of the County Governments Act and Sections 56(a) and 59(1) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019. It also observed that land reserved for public utilities becomes public land vested in the County Government under Article 62. The judgment on its face did not consider or give effect to these provisions, an omission the Court held struck at the foundation of the decision.
Whether the application was time-barred or barred by the earlier withdrawal of a similar application dated 25th July 2024
No. There is no statutory timeline for filing review and a prior withdrawal does not disentitle a party from filing a fresh application
The Respondent argued the motion, filed 99 days after judgment, was time-barred and a disguised appeal. The Court held there is no specific timeline under the law for filing review, provided the application is made without unreasonable delay, and that withdrawal of an earlier application does not bar a subsequent one. The Court found the application was made without unreasonable delay and that interests of justice required revisiting the judgment.
Legal principles established
#- A review may be granted to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, which must be self-evident and require no elaborate argument
- A review application is not subject to a specific statutory filing timeline, and withdrawal of an earlier review application does not bar a subsequent one
- Upon granting review, the court may set aside the judgment and order a rehearing de novo
- Land reserved for public utilities is public land vested in the County Government under Article 62 of the Constitution, to be administered on behalf of the National Land Commission for the residents
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 20th August 2024 is allowed
- 2.The Judgment of this Court delivered on 13th May 2024, together with all consequential orders and decree, is hereby set aside
- 3.The matter shall be heard afresh de novo
- 4.The court makes no orders as to Costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act (review jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Elangata Wuas Group Ranch (Suing through it Registered Group Ranch Officials) v County Government of Kajiado & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 443A of 2017) [2025] KEELC 6978 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 20th August 2024 (arising from judgment delivered 13th May 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6978/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.