Dennis Pritt Residents Association & 4 others v Nairobi City County Government & 6 others (Petition E037 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2427 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court threw out residents' attempt to reopen a construction case because they waited nearly a year and brought no genuinely new evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competence of the Motion - functus officio and res judicata
The plea for review itself is competent (review being an exception to both doctrines), but the standalone prayer for conservatory orders is barred as the court had already determined the identical application dated 16th October 2024
The court distinguished the two prayers. Because the threshold for review had never been determined, revisiting it was permissible. But the conservatory orders sought duplicated the application fully canvassed and dismissed on 27th February 2025, so re-litigating them offended both functus officio and res judicata, the latter applying equally to applications where parties, issues and reliefs are substantially the same.
Whether the review threshold under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1 was met
It was not: the motion was brought in unexplained inordinate delay and the alleged new evidence was discoverable with due diligence
The ruling was delivered 27th February 2025 and the motion filed 16th February 2026, roughly a year later, with no explanation. The lease could have been obtained by an official search; the 2021 Development Control Policy existed and was publicly available since 2021; proximity to State House and DoD Headquarters was ascertainable earlier; and the building's progression constitutes subsequent events which cannot found review but only fresh grievances.
Effect of the Court of Appeal decision in Anami on the review application
A subsequent judicial pronouncement on an existing policy is not new evidence and cannot ground review
The Anami decision of 19th September 2025 did not create the Nairobi City County Development Control Policy, 2021, nor transform it into new evidence; it was merely a later statement on an already existing framework, which the Petitioners could have relied on in their October 2024 application.
Legal principles established
#- Review is one of the recognized exceptions to the doctrines of functus officio and res judicata; the threshold question for review, if not previously determined, is not barred
- Conservatory relief already declined on a fully canvassed application cannot be re-sought in isolation; the court becomes functus officio and the claim is barred by res judicata
- An application for review must be made without unreasonable delay; unexplained inordinate delay is fatal
- Review on grounds of discovery of new evidence requires due diligence; evidence obtainable by ordinary diligence at the time of the original decision does not qualify, nor do subsequent events or later decisions of superior courts
- A subsequent decision of a superior court cannot found a basis for review
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 16th February 2026 is found unmerited and dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 69 and 70 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Sections 3 and 10 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mwawasi v Kenya National Highways Authority (KENHA) & another (Environment and Land Case E019 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4137 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4137 (KLR)6 Jul 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dennis Pritt Residents Association & 4 others v Nairobi City County Government & 6 others (Petition E037 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2427 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition dated 16th October 2024; Motion dated 16th February 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2427/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.