Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 2733 (KLR)

Republic v National Land Commission & 4 others; Khodiyar Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E009 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2733 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
11 May 2026
COChristine Ochieng
3,676 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court set aside a Kshs.39 million land compensation judgment after new evidence emerged, and reopened the case for a fresh hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st Respondent (the national land acquisition authority) filed a Notice of Motion dated 15th September 2025 seeking review, variation and setting aside of a judgment delivered on 26th May 2025 and a Decree issued on 16th July 2025, which had ordered the 1st and 2nd Respondents to pay the Ex parte Applicant Kshs.39,000,000, Kshs.38,500,000 and Kshs.1,564,000 as compensation for the compulsory acquisition of portions of the suit land (L.R. Number 20281) for the expansion of the ICD Embakasi access road. The 1st Respondent contended that following a corrigendum (Gazette Notice No. 11576 of 24th November 2017), only one portion of 0.027 Ha was acquired, valued at Kshs.6,171,199, and that it never issued an award for the land value because Arusha Stores Ltd also claimed ownership; it accused the Applicant of presenting suspicious awards to fraudulently benefit. The 2nd Respondent supported the motion, citing the need to protect public funds. The Ex parte Applicant opposed, arguing the advocates were not properly on record under Order 9 Rule 9, that no grounds for review were established, and that the application was filed after inordinate delay. The court framed two issues. On the first, it held that Order 9 Rule 9 did not apply where the matter had not previously been handled by an advocate and granted leave to regularize the representation. On the second, it found no inordinate delay and held that the discovery of new and important evidence post-judgment - the adjusted acquisition acreage and the ownership dispute - was credible and material. The court allowed the application, reviewed and set aside the judgment and Decree, reopened the suit, found the stay prayer spent, and awarded costs to the Ex parte Applicant to abide the outcome of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the firm of Ken Echesa & Company Advocates was properly on record post-judgment without leave under Order 9 Rule 9

Holding

The failure to seek leave was not fatal; the court granted leave to regularize the representation and declined to strike out the application.

Reasoning

Order 9 Rule 9 envisages a situation where the matter had previously been handled by an advocate, which was not the case here since the 1st Respondent's main replying affidavit was filed by its Director Legal Affairs and not a law firm. Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution permits courts to disregard procedural breaches so that parties are not driven from the seat of justice.

p. 5
02

Whether the 1st Respondent met the threshold for review of the judgment and Decree

Holding

Yes; the discovery that only one Award existed, that the acquisition acreage was adjusted by corrigendum, and an ownership dispute with Arusha Stores Ltd constituted new and important matter justifying review.

Reasoning

The application was filed without inordinate delay. The newly discovered evidence concerning changes to the land acquired and the ownership dispute was credible and material, not merely confirmatory. The court found the application fit the tenets of review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and proceeded to review, set aside the judgment and Decree, and reopen the suit.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • New and important matter discovered after judgment, not available when the court determined the application, satisfies the tenets of review and justifies setting aside the judgment and decree and reopening the suit.
  • Breach of Order 9 Rule 9 Civil Procedure Rules where the matter was not previously handled by an advocate is not fatal; the court may regularize representation under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the firm of Ken Echesa & Company Advocates to regularize its representation of the 1st Respondent; the application not struck out
  2. 2.Review granted; judgment delivered on 26th May 2025 and resultant Decree dated 16th July 2025 reviewed and set aside
  3. 3.Suit reopened
  4. 4.Prayer for stay of execution deemed spent
  5. 5.Costs granted to the Ex parte Applicant to abide the outcome of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Original judicial review jurisdiction; Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v National Land Commission & 4 others; Khodiyar Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E009 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2733 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2733/eng@2026-05-11

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.