Njagi & 2 others v Ndirangu & another; Wanjiku & 4 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E013 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7555 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a landowner's bid to review an injunction ruling, confirming that review is not a second chance to argue a losing case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an error apparent on the face of the record existed in the Ruling of 19th January 2024
No error apparent on the face of the record was established; the Learned Judge considered all necessary elements for the grant of the injunction and exercised his discretion judicially
The court examined the replying affidavit filed in opposition to the original injunction application and the ruling itself, and found that every issue raised in the review application had been raised in that replying affidavit. Justice Olola was aware of the prior litigation (Nyeri RMCC 214 of 1980 and HCCA 239/1990), aware that the applicant and her deceased husband were not parties to the earlier suits, and considered her claim to title and possession. His ruling reviewed the facts and law and exercised discretion; no two courts exercise discretion identically.
Whether the review application was a disguised appeal
Yes; the applicant was merely dissatisfied with the ruling and sought to overturn it, which is not a ground for review
Relying on Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya, the court held that review is not an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. Review lies only for patent error that stares one in the face and on which there could reasonably be no two opinions. The applicant's belief that the interlocutory injunction orders were erroneous, being in substance a complaint about the correctness of the decision, could only be pursued by appeal, not review.
Legal principles established
#- The error envisaged under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules means a mistake or error which is prima facie visible and does not require detailed examination
- Mere dissatisfaction with the correctness of an order does not entitle a party to review; an erroneous decision cannot be corrected in the guise of review
- Granting review where a party is merely aggrieved by the outcome would amount to the court sitting on appeal on its own decision
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 1st March 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, CAP 21 and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njagi & 2 others v Ndirangu & another; Wanjiku & 4 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E013 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7555 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7555/eng@2025-10-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.