Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Case No. 113 of 2015 (Notice of Motion dated 15th October 2025)· [2025] KEELC 8288 (KLR)

Isatu v Hirbo (Environment and Land Case 113 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 8288 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 November 2025
OMOguttu Mboya
2,170 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a third attempt to review the same land judgment, confirming courts cannot hear repeated review applications.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Paul Hirbo Hisatu, moved the Environment and Land Court at Meru by a Notice of Motion dated 15th October 2025 seeking, among other things, reopening of the file in ELC Case No. 113 of 2015, leave to mount a review of the judgment delivered in that suit, adoption of an implementation report dated 18th April 2024, boundary and enforcement orders, a permanent injunction, eviction and demolition orders, cancellation of a title obtained through an allegedly fraudulent mutation, and rectification of the register in respect of parcels Marsabit/Mountain/1070 and Marsabit/Mountain/700. The application was served but the respondent filed no response. The court identified a single determinative issue: whether it possessed jurisdiction to entertain the application. The court noted that the 2018 judgment had already been the subject of a review application dated 6th December 2018, which was heard and dismissed on the merits on 12th February 2020, and of a second review application dated 27th May 2025, which was withdrawn on 25th June 2025. Relying on Order 45 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, which bars any application to review an order made on a review, and on the Supreme Court's decision in Macharia v Kenya Commercial Bank and the Court of Appeal's decision in Phoenix of EA v Thiga on the foundational nature of jurisdiction, the court held that it was stripped of jurisdiction to entertain the successive review, which would sanction abuse of process. The Notice of Motion was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a successive application for review of the same judgment

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a second or successive application for review; Order 45 Rule 6 bars any application to review an order made on an application for review, and the application amounted to an abuse of process

Reasoning

The applicant's judgment of 8th November 2018 was already the subject of a review application dated 6th December 2018, which was heard and dismissed on merits on 12th February 2020, and a further application dated 27th May 2025 which was withdrawn on 25th June 2025. Order 45 Rule 6 expressly bars entertaining a review of an order made on review. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be expanded by judicial innovation, sympathy or empathy; a court acting without jurisdiction acts in vain and must down its tools.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a previous application for review has been made and an order made thereto, no further application for review can be entertained by the court, per Order 45 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
  • A court cannot expand its jurisdiction beyond that conferred by the Constitution, statute or constituting charter; proceedings undertaken without jurisdiction are a nullity

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated 15th October 2025 be and is hereby dismissed.
  2. 2.No orders as to costs.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63(e), 80
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 9 Rule 9; Order 45 Rules 1, 2, 6; Order 51 Rule 1
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 3(2)
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Articles 40, 47, 50, 159

Cases cited (2)

  • Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others (Application 2 of 2011)
    [2012] KESC 8 (KLR) (23 October 2012) (Ruling)
  • Phoenix of EA Company Limited v Thiga T/A Newspaper Service (Civil Appeal 244 of 2010)
    [2019] KECA 767 (KLR) (10 May 2019) (Judgment)
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63(e) and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45(1)(2) and (6) and Order 51(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Section 3(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Articles 40, 47, 50 and 159 of the Constitution 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Isatu v Hirbo (Environment and Land Case 113 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 8288 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case No. 113 of 2015 (Notice of Motion dated 15th October 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8288/eng@2025-11-27

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