Kiragu v Munyi & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E018 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3045 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land owner's bid to overturn an appeal ruling using a map made after judgment failed, confirming that review applications must go to the court that originally decided the matter.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the threshold for review under Section 80 CPC Act and Order 45 Rule 1(1) was met
Not met; the surveyor's map was procured after judgment, was not part of the trial record, and the review should have been sought in the trial court
The court distinguished review from an application to admit new evidence on appeal. The map dated 5th April 2025 did not exist at the trial or during the appeal, so it cannot ground review of the appellate judgment; any complaint goes to the trial court's decision of 19th November 2018, which alone could be impacted by the map.
Whether the incoming firm of advocates could come on record post-judgment
Granted; a consent letter signed by both outgoing and incoming firms was obtained and filed, satisfying Order 9 Rule 9
The respondent argued counsel was not properly on record for lack of consent or leave under Order 9 Rule 9. The court found a consent letter dated 23rd April 2025, duly signed by both firms, had been obtained and filed, and therefore allowed the prayer.
Costs of the application
Costs follow the event; the appellant to bear the respondents' costs
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs follow the event unless the court directs otherwise for good cause. The court found no cause to deviate and awarded the respondents' costs against the appellant.
Legal principles established
#- A court may review its judgment based on new evidence only where the evidence was discovered after due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge, could not have been produced at the time of the decree, and is relevant and capable of altering the judgment
- An application for review must be made to the court that passed the decree or order, not to an appellate court
- An appellate court in a retrial role re-evaluates the evidence while bearing in mind it did not see or hear the witnesses
Court orders
#- 1.The prayer for the firm of C N Mwiti and Co. Advocates to come on record for the appellant in place of A. P. Kariithi and Co. Advocates is granted
- 2.The rest of the prayers in the application dated 23rd April 2025 are dismissed
- 3.The appellant/applicant to bear the respondents' costs
- On appeal from
- Trial court (magistrates' court, not named in judgment)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 159(2)(b), (d) and 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 3A & 80 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45 Rule 1(1) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiragu v Munyi & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E018 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3045 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 23rd April 2025 (in the appellant's appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3045/eng@2026-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.