Runo v Kariuki & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 8489 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Nakuru dismissed a tenant's review application, confirming you cannot smuggle an appeal into a review by recycling evidence you already had.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the succession proceedings in Nyahururu HCFP & A E019 of 2025 constitute new and important matter for review
No; the death of Simon Waweru Mugo occurred after the Tribunal's decision and was not material, and the succession proceedings were initiated before judgment but the underlying facts were known to the applicant
The court observed that Simon Waweru Mugo died on 16th March 2025, two days after the Tribunal's decision, so his death could not affect the Tribunal's jurisdiction or capacity findings. The succession cause was initiated on 30th September 2025, but the fact of the proprietors' deaths and the guardianship of Grace Wacice Waweru were already on record through affidavits before the Tribunal, so the applicant cannot claim due diligence.
Whether the applicant's contention on the lapse of the Power of Attorney upon the donors' death can found review
No; such a contention should have been deployed against the Tribunal's decision, not the judgment on appeal
The court held that the allegation that the Power of Attorney lapsed in 2021 was a matter going to the Tribunal's decision and should have been used in an application for review of the Tribunal ruling, or raised before the Tribunal itself. Raising it for the first time on review of the appellate judgment is an attempt to re-litigate matters already open to the applicant, defeating the narrow grounds of Order 45.
Whether the respondents' capacity had already been conclusively determined
Yes; the issue was litigated and determined by the Tribunal and this Court, engaging res judicata
The respondents argued, and the record showed, that the question of the respondents' capacity as landladies and lawful representatives of the three families was raised and determined in BPRT E164 of 2024, in related rulings in BPRT E065 of 2023, and in this Court's judgment of 9th October 2025. The review application cannot reopen matters conclusively determined; to do so would convert review into a second appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Matters that were within the applicant's knowledge or ought to have been known before the original decision, but were not raised, cannot be raised on review
- An application requiring the court to re-evaluate evidence and draw different conclusions is an appeal disguised as a review and is impermissible
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review of the judgment dated 9th October 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal (Nakuru BPRT Nov E164 of 2024)
- Nakuru BPRT Nov E164 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; appeal under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Runo v Kariuki & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 8489 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Appeal No. E015 of 2025 (Review Application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8489/eng@2025-12-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.