Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 18th August, 2025 (arising from Nakuru CMELC No. 142 of 2020)· [2026] KEELC 2 (KLR)

Nyabonei & another v Chemutai (Environment and Land Appeal E033 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 January 2026
MOM. A. ODENY
1,060 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Nakuru dismissed applicants' bid to review a January 2025 ruling, punishing a seven-month, unexplained delay with costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by M. A. Odeny, J of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru disposes of a Notice of Motion dated 18th August 2025 by which the Applicants, including Stephen Kemei, sought review of the court's ruling of 24th January 2025, which had granted them an extension of time to file an appeal out of time and directed a deposit of Kshs. 200,000 in a joint interest-earning account, together with stay of execution of the decree in Nakuru CMELC No. 142 of 2020. The Applicants deponed that the January orders had lapsed through inadvertence and financial incapacity, and no prejudice would be suffered by the Respondent, Alice Chemutai. The Respondent opposed, highlighting a seven-month delay in filing the application, arguing it fell outside Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, that review was being used as an appeal in disguise against an interlocutory order, and that the proper remedy was an appeal. Framing a single issue - whether the application had merit - the court held that the Applicants had waited seven months without any reasonable or satisfactory explanation for the delay, had squandered the chance previously given to file their appeal out of time, and that the application was not suitable for review under Order 45. The court applied the Court of Appeal authority in Evan Bwire v Andrew Aginda, which adopted Stephen Githua Kimani v Nancy Wanjira Waruingi, to the effect that review is allowed only on strong grounds, particularly where new evidence demonstrates due diligence. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants satisfied the grounds for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

The application for review fails; the applicants waited seven months without reasonable explanation and the matters raised were already canvassed in the ruling of 24th January 2025.

Reasoning

The court noted that the ruling of 24th January 2025 granted conditional orders - extension of time to file an appeal within 30 days and a deposit of Kshs. 200,000 in a joint interest-earning account. The applicants squandered that chance and offered no satisfactory explanation for the seven-month delay. Review is not a vehicle to re-open matters already decided; a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order should appeal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for review will only be allowed on strong grounds, particularly where new evidence which could not be obtained with due diligence is demonstrated

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 18th August 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyabonei & another v Chemutai (Environment and Land Appeal E033 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 18th August, 2025 (arising from Nakuru CMELC No. 142 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2/eng@2026-01-05

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