Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedMiscellaneous Application (Notice of Motion dated January 15, 2024)· [2026] KEELC 3024 (KLR)

National Land Commission v Wambugu (Miscellaneous Civil Application 2B of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3024 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 May 2026
2,351 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Land Court dismissed the National Land Commission's attempt to overturn a Kshs.145 million land acquisition judgment because review applications must be filed in the original case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The National Land Commission filed a Notice of Motion dated January 15, 2024 seeking a stay of the judgment and decree in Nyeri ELCA No. 1 of 2017 (formerly Nairobi ELCA No. 99 of 2015), delivered on April 27, 2023, and its review, variation or setting aside. The matter originated from the compulsory acquisition of parcel Aguthi/Gatitu/3347, Nyeri, under Gazette Notice No. 1466 of January 12, 2007 for a Farmer's Training Centre, for which an award of Kshs.145,595,750 was made under Section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited pending determination of High Court Civil Case No. 9 of 2009. The Commission contended that, having neither attended the appeal nor joined the Ministry of Agriculture, the court was misled, and that public funds of Kshs.729,100,000 stood to be paid as unjust enrichment. The Respondent opposed, arguing no ground for review was disclosed, the application was a decade late in substance, and no judgment existed in the miscellaneous cause to review. The court held that review lies to the court which passed the decree, and as the Applicant had abandoned the original suit and filed a miscellaneous application without the original file, the court was not competent to decide it. On the merits, none of the Section 80/Order 45 grounds was satisfied, and the application was in substance an appeal in the wrong forum. Further, the supporting affidavit was uncommissioned and was expunged with its annexures. The entire application was dismissed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant satisfied the statutory grounds for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

The Applicant did not meet any of the conditions for review: no error apparent or mistake on the face of the judgment, no new evidence, and no sufficient reason; the application was in substance an appeal in the wrong manner and forum

Reasoning

The court held that review is made to the court which passed the decree, and here the Applicant abandoned the original suit and filed a miscellaneous application without the actual suit file, so the court could not competently decide it. On the merits, none of the statutory grounds - discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason - was made out. The grounds advanced were attacks on the judgment amounting to grounds of appeal, which cannot qualify as grounds for review.

p. 5
02

Whether the uncommissioned supporting affidavit could support the application

Holding

The affidavit, not having been signed and stamped by a qualified Commissioner of Oaths, is not an affidavit in law; it was expunged and its annexures deemed improperly produced

Reasoning

Relying on the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act (Cap 15), the court noted that a Commissioner of Oaths must be appointed by the Chief Justice and gazetted, and must state in the jurat the place and date the affidavit is taken. Applying Black's Law Dictionary as adopted in Muktar Bishar Sheikh v IEBC, an affidavit must be voluntary, written and commissioned; the absence of commissioning means the document is not an affidavit known in law and cannot stand as evidence.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Review lies only to the Court which passed the decree, and that Court must have access to the actual suit file; a review application filed in a miscellaneous cause without the original file is not competent
  • An uncommissioned document is not an affidavit known in law and should be expunged from the record

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The supporting affidavit sworn on behalf of the Applicant is expunged from the record, and the documents attached to it cannot be deemed properly produced before the Court
  2. 2.The entire miscellaneous application is dismissed in its entirety
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent review jurisdiction under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "National Land Commission v Wambugu (Miscellaneous Civil Application 2B of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3024 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Application (Notice of Motion dated January 15, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3024/eng@2026-05-14

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