Mutuku & another v National Environment Tribunal & 2 others (Environment and Planning Appeal E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2395 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed an appeal seeking correction of alleged errors in a National Environment Tribunal quarry judgment, confirming only obvious, self-evident mistakes justify review in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the alleged errors in the Tribunal's judgment (EIA licence number, land parcel, director's name) constituted errors apparent on the face of the record justifying review
The Court found that the matters raised were disputed issues of fact going to the merits and were not errors apparent on the face of the record
The Court perused the Tribunal record and found that the licence issued and revoked by NEMA was NEMA/EIA/PSL/11828 per the witness statement; that the change of user bore title Machakos/Nguluni/800/5621 while the title deed bore Machakos/Nguluni/800, with an ownership dispute pending before the Environment and Land Court; and that the names Kamali Musyoka Kithuva and Kithuwa were used interchangeably. These being contested factual matters, this Court, not being the trial court, could not interrogate them.
The test for review under Order 45 Rule 1(b) and section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act
Review requires discovery of new and important matter, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, and the discretion must be exercised judiciously
The Court set out the statutory framework: section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act confers an unfettered discretion to make such orders as the court thinks fit on sufficient reason, while Order 45 Rule 1(b) specifies the grounds. Drawing on Mwihoko Housing Company and National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau, the Court held the error must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument; misconstruing a statute or reaching an erroneous conclusion of law is not a ground for review.
Legal principles established
#- A review may only be granted where the error or omission is self-evident and does not require elaborate argument to establish; a different view of the matter or an incorrect exposition of law is not a ground for review
- An application for review under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be clear and specific on the basis upon which it is made
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs
- 2.It is so ordered
- On appeal from
- National Environment Tribunal
- NET Case No. E003 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal against the Ruling and Order of the National Environment Tribunal in NET Case No. E003 of 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutuku & another v National Environment Tribunal & 2 others (Environment and Planning Appeal E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2395 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). NET Appeal No. E003 of 2024 (Ruling of 30th May 2025 appealed against). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2395/eng@2026-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.