Board of Management, Symbios Kabeiyo Primary School & 2 others v Chepsiror (Sued as the Administratix of the Estate of Late Kipyego Chepsiror Kolil - Deceased) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 8 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 1080 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An Eldoret court refused to transfer land solely to a school because the school offered no evidence that the other co-owners had given up their shares.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the alleged relinquishment of rights by the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs constituted a 'sufficient reason' for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
It did not. The Applicant did not claim any error on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter, and produced no documentary evidence (agreement, MOU or affidavits) proving the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs had relinquished their shares; granting the orders would divest them of their decreed shares without being heard.
The court reviewed the statutory grounds for review and noted the Applicant relied only on 'sufficient reason'. The Applicant's own claim was that the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs had relinquished their rights, yet no agreement, MOU or affidavits from their representatives were annexed. The trial record showed the land was purchased for three institutions, not solely the school. Since the three Plaintiffs were proprietors under the decree, they could deal with the land themselves without a court order.
Whether an unopposed application must automatically be granted
No. The absence of responses from the served parties did not entitle the Applicant to the orders as a matter of course.
Although the Motion was served on all parties and none filed a response, the court held that undefended assertions are not accepted as gospel truth. The proposed orders would have deprived the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs of their shares in the suit property without being heard and without confirmation of their consent, which the court could not sanction on uncorroborated averments alone.
Legal principles established
#- Once a court has made a decision on merit it becomes functus officio, but it retains a limited power of review exercisable cautiously, scrupulously and judiciously, only to the extent allowed by law.
- To succeed on review, an applicant must demonstrate discovery of new and important matter or evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason, and that the application was made without unreasonable delay.
- Where a review application is based on sufficient reason, it is for the court to exercise its discretion.
- The failure of respondents to file a response to an application does not mean the applicant's assertions will be accepted as gospel truth.
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Plaintiff/Applicant's application dated 18th September, 2025 is dismissed with no order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45(1) 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, "Board of Management, Symbios Kabeiyo Primary School & 2 others v Chepsiror (Sued as the Administratix of the Estate of Late Kipyego Chepsiror Kolil - Deceased) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 8 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 1080 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 18th September, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1080/eng@2026-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.