Maritim & 5 others v Samoei & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E053 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7071 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Eldoret dismissed defendants' attempt to review a ruling, confirming that unhappiness with a decision means you appeal, not seek review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants established sufficient reason or discovery of new evidence for review under Order 45 Rule 1
The alleged television broadcast of 17th January 2024 was already within the Applicants' knowledge at the time of the contempt application and was presented to the court then, so it was not new matter discovered after due diligence.
The Applicants themselves deponed in the contempt application that the Respondents went to the media on 17th January 2024, the same day as the alleged eviction. The information therefore existed and was placed before the court when the contempt application was decided. It cannot constitute discovery of new and important matter or evidence which was not within the Applicants' knowledge or could not with due diligence have been produced at the time of the ruling.
Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record
Whether the alleged contemnors were aware of the orders is a question requiring evidence and elaborate argument and thus cannot be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Citing National Bank of Kenya Ltd vs Ndungu Njau and Nyamogo & Nyamogo vs Kogo, the court held that an error apparent must be self-evident and not require elaborate reasoning. The issue of the Respondents' knowledge of the orders, and the finding that the contempt application would in any event have failed because no positive orders were issued on 19th January 2023, show that no self-evident error exists.
Whether the application was an appeal disguised as review
The Applicants' disagreement with the ruling of 27th March 2025 is a ground of appeal, not review.
The Applicants clearly disagreed with the court's earlier ruling; instead of appealing, they brought a review application. Allowing review on that basis would amount to the court sitting on appeal over its own decision, for which it has no jurisdiction. The application therefore failed.
Legal principles established
#- A good ground of appeal is not necessarily a good ground for review; dissatisfaction with a ruling should be pursued by appeal, not review.
- Review cannot be used to invite the court to sit on appeal on its own decision.
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st, 3rd and 5th Defendants/Applicants Notice of Motion dated 2nd April, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The Applicants shall bear the costs of this application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review of the court's own ruling)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maritim & 5 others v Samoei & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E053 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7071 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7071/eng@2025-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.