Omondi v Olendo (Environment and Land Case 92 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 1112 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a landowner's attempt to overturn an adverse possession judgment, confirming that review applications cannot be used as disguised appeals.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 20-month delay in filing the review application was reasonable
Although the delay was unreasonable, it was satisfactorily explained by the Defendant's stroke and subsequent recovery in October 2023, corroborated by the hospital report.
The judgment was delivered on 21st April 2022 and the Motion filed 5th December 2023, a 20-month delay. Medical notes from the County General Hospital in Kakamega showed the Defendant suffered a stroke on 10th May 2022 and only stabilised from 8th October 2023, whereupon he filed the Motion on 28th November 2023. The court held the delay explained to its satisfaction.
Whether the grounds raised constitute errors apparent on the face of the record
No. The complaints (possession arising from a sale agreement, wrong party sued, limitation, continuity of possession) require elaborate argument and evidence; they are grounds of appeal, not self-evident errors.
Relying on National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau and Multichoice (Kenya) Ltd v Wananchi Group (Kenya) Ltd, the court held that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident, prima facie visible, and not require detailed examination of facts or law. The Defendant's grounds invite a re-examination of the trial evidence, which is impermissible on review.
Whether the Motion is an appeal disguised as a review
Yes. The Defendant sought a re-evaluation of the evidence and a reversal of the findings on adverse possession, which is appellate in nature.
Counsel's submissions invited the court to re-determine the adverse possession claim and restore the Defendant as registered owner. The court held that re-visiting the evidence before the trial court sits on appeal against a judgment of a court of equal jurisdiction, and that the proper forum is the Court of Appeal. A good ground of appeal is not a good ground for review.
Legal principles established
#- A review may only be granted where the error is self-evident on the face of the record and does not require elaborate argument to establish; an erroneous conclusion of law is not a ground for review.
- A good ground of appeal is not a good ground for review; the proper forum for challenging the correctness of a first-instance judgment is the Court of Appeal, not a review by a court of equal jurisdiction.
- Unreasonable delay in filing a review application may be excused where satisfactorily explained, such as by serious illness evidenced by medical reports.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 28th November 2023 is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Costs to the Plaintiff.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1, 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omondi v Olendo (Environment and Land Case 92 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 1112 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 28th November 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1112/eng@2026-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.