Kirinya v Thuranira (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1837 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant duly filed and served his written submissions within the court's directions
The submissions dated 26th January 2026 were in fact lodged in the court tracking system on 2nd February 2026 at 5.15pm, outside the timelines and after the court had fixed judgment, and were never served
The court commissioned a check of the court tracking system which showed the submissions were filed on 2nd February 2026 at 5.15pm, well after the 21-day deadline and after judgment had been scheduled. Counsel was found to have backdated the submissions and litigated by ambush, contrary to Article 50(1) of the Constitution and sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act. Non-compliance should have been addressed by seeking extension of time.
Whether the application met the threshold for review under Order 45 rule 1
No ground of review was pleaded or substantiated; the application was defective and legally untenable
The grounds for review are discovery of new and important evidence, error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient cause. The Applicant did not disclose any ground in the body of the application, and the arguments on new evidence and apparent error surfaced only in submissions. Non-consideration of submissions is not new evidence, and no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated in the court's re-evaluation of the trial evidence.
Legal principles established
#- Submissions are not evidence; failure to consider or file submissions does not constitute discovery of new and important evidence for review
- A party seeking review must plead the particular ground of review in the body of the application before substantiating it
- A 'mere error' is distinct from an error apparent on the face of the record; only the latter may ground review
- Every court process must be served on the adverse party; filing submissions without service amounts to litigating by ambush
Court orders
#- 1.The amended Notice of Motion Application dated 19th February 2026 be and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Costs of the Application be and are hereby awarded to the Respondent (the Appellant in the main appeal).
- 3.The Cost(s) shall be agreed upon and in default be taxed in the conventional manner.
- On appeal from
- Lower Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 63(e) and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya; Order 42 rule 6 and Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kirinya v Thuranira (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1837 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (amended Notice of Motion dated 19th February 2026 in an appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1837/eng@2026-03-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.