Kones v Sambut Tea Limited & 2 others (Sued as the Administrators of the Estate of the Late Kipkalya Kiprono Kones (Deceased)) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7425 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Court should review its status quo orders of 26th September, 2024
The application, though brought under the wrong provisions (Sections 1A, 1B, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act instead of Section 80 and Order 45 Rule 1), was considered on its merits since wrong invocation is a curable technicality; but the Plaintiff demonstrated no sufficient reason for review. His grievance that the Court failed to consider the unique nature of tea bushes is an appellate complaint, not a review ground.
The court reviewed Section 80 and Order 45 Rule 1 and the grounds for review. The Applicant invoked the third limb of 'any other sufficient reason', which need not be analogous to the other grounds. However, his actual complaint is that the Court erred in failing to consider the perishable nature of tea bushes when issuing status quo orders. Such dissatisfaction with the reasoning of the earlier ruling is a ground for appeal, not review, so the threshold was not met.
Whether the Plaintiff should be allowed to access the suit parcel to collect his items, tools and personal belongings
Refused, because the existence of such items on the parcel is disputed and the Applicant did not demonstrate that any tools remain there.
The 2nd Defendant deposed that the Plaintiff used her farm tools and left nothing when removed in 2021, so the existence of the Plaintiff's items on the parcel is disputed. Applying the principle that court orders cannot issue in a vacuum and good cause must be established, the court found the Applicant had not demonstrated the existence of the items, and declined the relief.
Whether Kaisugu Tea Limited should deposit proceeds of green leaf sales in Court or a joint account
Not determined on merits since the review failed; in any event no orders can issue against Kaisugu Tea Limited as it is not a party to the proceedings.
Neither Respondent addressed the issue in submissions, and the court's finding against review rendered the question academic. Additionally, the relief was directed against Kaisugu Tea Limited, a non-party, and the court relied on authority that orders cannot be made against persons who are not parties and have not been heard.
Costs
Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; the dismissed Applicant to bear the Respondents' costs.
The court invoked the general rule that costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21), meaning a successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless the court for good reason directs otherwise. No such reason existed, so costs were awarded to the Defendants/Respondents.
Legal principles established
#- Reliance on the wrong provisions of the law is a procedural technicality which the Court can overlook for the sake of substantive justice, provided there is no bad faith, misleading or prejudice.
- Review lies only on the grounds of discovery of new and important matter or evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, and without unreasonable delay.
- A party who believes the Court reached the wrong conclusion should appeal, not seek review, which is limited in scope.
- The Court cannot issue orders against persons or entities who are not parties to the case.
- Court orders cannot issue in a vacuum; good cause must first be established to attract relief.
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintifi/Applicant's application dated 18th October, 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Defendants/Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (application); underlying suit by Originating Summons for adverse possession
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kones v Sambut Tea Limited & 2 others (Sued as the Administrators of the Estate of the Late Kipkalya Kiprono Kones (Deceased)) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7425 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case No. E007 of 2024 (OS) [Kericho]. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7425/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.