Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 7684 (KLR)

Raghwani & 2 others v Kerai (Legal Representative of the Estate of Kanji Mavji Kerai) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E042 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7684 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 November 2025
COChristine Ochieng
1,538 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed an estate's attempt to overturn a 2023 land decree so it could accept a better offer, because the application came far too late.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on the Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 7th November 2024 seeking review of a decree issued on 9th February 2023, under which LR No. 209/4593/2 was valued and the Respondent's 25% undivided share was to be sold to the Applicants on first priority. The Respondent, representing the estate of Kanji Mavji Ramji, sought review so that he could sell the 25% share to a third party, Jim Wachira Kabiru, who had offered Kshs. 62,500,000/-, contending that the decree would cost the estate about Kshs. 22.5 million and invoking section 96(1)(c) of the Land Registration Act. He also raised an unaddressed claim about rents of over Kshs. 10,450,560/- allegedly held by the Applicants. The Applicants opposed, arguing the application was an abuse of process, filed late, and overtaken by events since the court's Ruling of 14th November 2024 had already been executed. The court framed a single issue: whether the decree of 9th February 2023 should be reviewed. Applying section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and associating itself with the Court of Appeal decisions in Stephen Gathua Kimani v Nancy Wanjira Waruingi and Afapack Enterprises Limited, the court held that a review must be sought without unreasonable delay and must rest on new and important matter, an error apparent on the record, or other sufficient reason. The only explanation offered was a better price obtained over two years after the decree. The court found inordinate delay and no sufficient cause, dismissed the application, and gave no costs order.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Decree issued on 9th February 2023 should be reviewed

Holding

The application for review fails; the Respondent did not establish the grounds for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Reasoning

The court set out the statutory criteria for review: discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, plus absence of unreasonable delay. The only explanation offered was a better third-party offer received more than two years after the decree, which does not satisfy the statutory parameters. The court associated itself with the Court of Appeal authorities on the requirement of promptness and found the delay inordinate and no sufficient cause shown, dismissing the application.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for review must be made without unreasonable delay and must demonstrate discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 7th November 2024 seeking review of the decree of 9th February 2023 is dismissed
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction of the court that passed the decree)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Raghwani & 2 others v Kerai (Legal Representative of the Estate of Kanji Mavji Kerai) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E042 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7684 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7684/eng@2025-11-06

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