Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of motion dated 4th June, 2025 (Judicial Review proceedings; substantive application dated 22nd November, 2024)· [2026] KEELC 411 (KLR)

Republic v Land Registrar Nairobi Ardhi House & another; Medallion Properties Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E030 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 411 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (Judicial Review Division)
3 February 2026
1,608 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

#

The High Court varied its earlier judgment to cover seven land properties accidentally left out, confirming courts can fix obvious errors without changing their decisions.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex-parte applicant, through a notice of motion dated 4th June 2025 brought under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 43 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, sought variation of the court's judgment and decree issued on 24th April 2025, which had allowed its judicial review application but applied only to property No. 243961 and not the seven other properties cited in the substantive application dated 22nd November 2024 (IR. Nos. 248380, 248382, 248379, 248381, 248377, 248376 and 106486/1). The applicant, through Michael Gitonga, explained that searches on the additional properties could not be obtained in time due to the urgency of filing, and in a further affidavit annexed seven official searches confirming registration of caveats on those properties, arising from the 2nd respondent's restriction dated 13th September 2024 registered on 24th September 2024. The respondents filed no response despite evidence of service. The court, disposing of the matter by written submissions, framed the single issue as whether the application had merit. Relying on the Supreme Court's exposition of the Slip Rule in Outa v Okello and the Court of Appeal's decision in Kenya Power v Benzene Holdings on inherent jurisdiction, the court held that the omission of the seven properties was an error apparent on the face of the record, that allowing the variation would not change the substance of the judgment or occasion injustice, and that the application merely sought to perfect the judgment. The application was allowed and the decree varied to cover the seven properties, with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the omission of seven properties from the judgment of 24th April 2025 was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting variation of the decree

Holding

Yes - the applicant had cited the properties in its substantive application and evidenced the caveats; allowing the variation would not change the substance of the judgment

Reasoning

The court found the judgment of 24th April 2025 had determined all issues in controversy, but that the ex-parte applicant had sufficiently demonstrated that the seven subject properties were cited in its application dated 22nd November 2024 and were affected by the 2nd respondent's restriction. The annexed official searches (MG 1 - MG 7) proved the caveats. Correcting the omission was an error apparent on the face of the record, occasioned no injustice, and did not alter the substance of the judgment - it merely perfected its implementation.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The Slip Rule permits correction of errors apparent on the face of a judgment but does not confer jurisdiction to sit on appeal over or substantially alter a court's own judgment
  • The court's inherent jurisdiction is a residual source of powers exercisable where necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process
  • A defect or error in a proceeding may be amended at any time to determine the real question in issue

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The orders issued on 24th April 2025 are varied to the extent that the same apply to the properties known as IR. Nos. 248380, 248382, 248379, 248381, 248377, 248376 and 106486/1 as prayed in the substantive application dated 22nd November, 2024
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 80, 99 and 100
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrders 43, 45 and 51

Cases cited (3)

  • Outa v Okello & 3 others (Petition 6 of 2014)
    [2017] KESC 25 (KLR)
  • Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v Benzene Holdings Limited t/a Wyco Paints
    [2016] eKLR
  • Meshallum Waweru Wanguku
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 43 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Land Registrar Nairobi Ardhi House & another; Medallion Properties Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E030 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 411 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of motion dated 4th June, 2025 (Judicial Review proceedings; substantive application dated 22nd November, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/411/eng@2026-02-03

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