Omunyokho v Omunyokho (Environment and Land Case E472 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 1710 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kakamega court refused to revisit its 2023 land judgment because the applicant waited too long and was already appealing, and he must pay the other side's costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant met the threshold for review under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1
The threshold was not met; the application was dismissed
The court recited section 80 and Order 45 Rule 1, which restrict review to discovery of new and important matter or evidence not obtainable with due diligence, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient cause, and require the application without unreasonable delay. The purported 'new' Land Disputes Tribunal decision of 1996 was not shown to be undiscoverable with due diligence. Grievances about the court's factual and legal conclusions are appellate matters, and an approximately 19-month delay was inordinate, with the pending appeal rendering the review an abuse of process.
Whether a pending appeal bars a review application by the aggrieved party
Pursuing review while simultaneously challenging the same judgment on appeal amounts to an abuse of the court's process
The respondent showed that a notice of appeal was filed on 25th September 2023 and an appeal, Kisumu CA No. E263 of 2023, was active. The applicant sought simultaneously to have the appellate court correct the judgment and to have this court revisit its own conclusions. The court held that such a duplicative course is abusive of process and constitutes an additional ground for refusing the review.
Whether the delay in bringing the review application was excusable
The approximately 19-month delay between the judgment of 18th September 2023 and the application of 22nd April 2025 was inordinate
The judgment was delivered on 18th September 2023 and the application was filed on 22nd April 2025, a gap of about 19 months. Order 45 Rule 1 requires an application for review to be made without unreasonable delay. The applicant's assertion that there was no inordinate delay was not accepted, and the delay independently disentitled him to the discretionary relief of review.
Legal principles established
#- Review is confined to the three grounds in Order 45 Rule 1 - discovery of new and important matter not obtainable with due diligence, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient cause - and must be sought without unreasonable delay
- A court cannot, on review, revisit the correctness of its own factual or legal conclusions; such complaints lie on appeal
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the application dated 22nd April 2025
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the defendant/respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 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, "Omunyokho v Omunyokho (Environment and Land Case E472 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 1710 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of motion dated 22nd April 2025 (in the suit over Butsotso/Shikoti/7164 and 7165). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1710/eng@2026-03-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.