Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 7129 (KLR)

Daniel & 7 others v Daniel & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E050 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7129 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 October 2025
AKA. Y. KOROSS
2,271 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

#

The Machakos Environment and Land Court refused to review its earlier ruling and ordered rental income held in a joint account released to the defendants.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Machakos (A. Y. Koross, J) dealt with two competing applications arising from the court's ruling of 13/11/2024 (the impugned ruling). The plaintiffs, by an application dated 5/12/2024, sought review of the impugned ruling, reinstatement and enforcement of an order of 24/10/2023, and an injunction restraining the defendants from collecting rental income from Muputi/Kiima Kimwe/60 and Kalama Kiitinu/1573 to their exclusion. They relied on alleged new evidence, including minutes of a family meeting and a Business Registration Service document. The defendants opposed, contending the application was an abuse of process, res judicata, belated, and based on documents already within the plaintiffs' knowledge, some allegedly forged. The defendants, by their application dated 26/01/2025, sought release to their own account of all rental monies and accrued interest held in a joint KCB-Machakos account, plus a bank statement. The court observed preliminarily that the injunctive reliefs were res judicata and that there was no order of 24/10/2023 capable of enforcement, the impugned ruling having vacated it. On review, applying Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Nderitu v Assets Recovery Agency [2024] KECA 1612 (KLR), the court held the alleged new matter failed the due-diligence threshold and the application was inordinately late. The plaintiffs' application was dismissed and the defendants' application allowed, with the joint account funds released to the defendants and a bank statement ordered, costs in the cause. The court also restricted further applications except with leave and directed compliance with Order 11.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiffs met the threshold for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

They did not; the alleged new and important matter was within their knowledge long before the impugned ruling and the application was filed late

Reasoning

The court applied Order 45 Rule 1(1) and the Nderitu v Assets Recovery Agency principles. The Business Registration Service document was availed on 19/03/2021, before the application of 20/09/2023, and some documents were in the plaintiffs' lists or showed plaintiffs as participants. No due diligence averment was made in the supporting affidavit. The application was also inordinately late, so the discretion to review was not exercised in the plaintiffs' favour.

p. 5
02

Whether the defendants' application for release of the joint account monies and a bank statement should be allowed

Holding

Allowed; the joint account orders having been vacated by the impugned ruling, the funds and accrued interest were to be released to the defendants' account

Reasoning

Having found no merit in the review, and noting that the orders of 18/10/2023 issued on 24/10/2024 were vacated by the impugned ruling, the court found the defendants' motion merited and ordered release of the rental monies and accrued interest plus a bank statement, with costs in the cause.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for review on the ground of newly discovered evidence must demonstrate due diligence, that the evidence was not within their knowledge or reach, that it is significant enough to alter the outcome, and must apply without unreasonable delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiffs' application dated 5/12/2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.All monies received from the rental properties in Muputi/Kiima-Kimwe/60 and Kalama Kiitinu/1573 deposited in the joint account at KCB-Machakos Branch, together with accrued interest, be released to the defendants' Co-operative Bank-Machakos Branch account
  3. 3.Kenya Commercial Bank-Machakos Branch to furnish a bank statement to the defendants, jointly and/or severally, from the date of operation of the joint account to the date of the ruling
  4. 4.Except with leave of the court, there shall be no further filing of applications in this matter
  5. 5.Parties directed to comply fully with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  6. 6.A mention date to be given for pre-trial directions
  7. 7.Costs shall be in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Daniel & 7 others v Daniel & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E050 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7129 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7129/eng@2025-10-21

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