Kiragu & another (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late James Kiragu Kigotho (Deceased)) v Miringu (Environment and Land Case 152 of 2013) [2026] KEELC 3180 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Nakuru dismissed landowners' attempt to review an eviction order, confirming that review cannot be used to retry a lost case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ruling of 11th December 2025 contained an error apparent on the face of the record by ordering eviction from Miti Mingi/Mbaruk Block 5/36, a parcel said to have ceased to exist upon subdivision
No error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated; Block 5/36 was the original suit property prior to subdivision, and the defendant's eviction prayer covered the parcel and all its subdivisions, including Block 5/4253
The court noted it was not in contention that Miti Mingi/Mbaruk Block 5/36 was the original suit property prior to subdivision, and the defendant's prayer was for eviction from that parcel and all subdivisions. Ombwayo J had rightly held the eviction orders extended to the subdivisions including Block 5/4253. Referring to the parent parcel was therefore not a mistake; it remains the same land, and the applicants still ought to vacate. The 2017 judgment has not been set aside or appealed against.
Whether the application for review met the threshold under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The application did not meet the threshold; it was an attempt to relitigate an application heard on its merits and was dismissed
Applying Muyodi v Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation, the court held the applicants failed to demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record. An error requiring long drawn reasoning or admitting two opinions is not apparent on the face of the record. The application amounted to a back-door appeal against a ruling still open to appeal, and the delay in filing was unexplained.
Legal principles established
#- An error apparent on the face of the record must be one that stares one in the face with no two opinions; a possible view adopted by the court below cannot amount to such an error, and mere error or wrong view is a ground for appeal, not review.
- Review jurisdiction cannot be used to relitigate a matter already heard on its merits; that is a back-door appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 23rd February 2026 seeking review of the ruling of 11th December 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Defendant/Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiragu & another (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late James Kiragu Kigotho (Deceased)) v Miringu (Environment and Land Case 152 of 2013) [2026] KEELC 3180 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3180/eng@2026-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.