Hari v Highlands Homes Investments Co Ltd (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3390 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed Jane Michuki Hari's attempt to undo eviction orders because she acted too late and produced no credible new evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Discovery of new and important material or evidence under review jurisdiction
Ground fails; due diligence required and not shown, and the alleged discovery is contradicted by the certificate of incorporation showing registration on 26/4/1975
The law requires not just non-discovery but that the material could not have been discovered after due diligence. A search at the Companies Registry would have established registration. Further, the Registrar's records (22/5/2010), the Application (22/5/2020) and the certificate (26/4/1975) conflict, and the certificate, as the primary document, prevails. The Plaintiff herself sued the Defendant as a limited company in 1986.
Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
No such error established
The Plaintiff alleged a mistake and error apparent on the face of the record but produced nothing substantiating it. The court found none visible on the record. This ground therefore failed as unsubstantiated.
Blaming previous advocates for failure to file a Replying Affidavit and attend the hearing
Rejected; such accusations must be substantiated by joining the advocate as an interested party
The court noted it is common for litigants to blame previous advocates. If the accusation of negligence is serious enough to impugn professional competence, the advocate should be named as an interested party to clear his name. The bare assertion, without joining the firm of Waithaka Wachira & Co Advocates, could not be accepted.
Delay in bringing the application
Five years' delay is inexcusable and prejudicial; ground fails
The order sought to be reviewed was made on 25/9/2009 and the application was brought some five years after the earlier dismissal on 15/4/2021. Such inordinate delay risks prejudice to the Respondent, who may have forgotten the case or its facts. This independently justified dismissal with costs.
Legal principles established
#- Review based on discovery of new material requires that the material could not, with due diligence, have been discovered earlier; a party who could have conducted a simple search cannot claim late discovery
- A certificate of registration is the primary document of a company's existence and is to be preferred over a search record from the same office
- A plaintiff who sued and described a defendant as a limited liability company cannot later deny that the entity she sued and which entered appearance is not the one she intended to sue
- Allegations of an advocate's negligence must be substantiated by joining the advocate as an interested party; courts should be reluctant to accept the 'sins of an advocate' excuse without proof
- Inordinate and unexplained delay in bringing a review application is inexcusable and may prejudice the respondent
Court orders
#- 1.The Application for review, setting aside and/or vacation of the orders of 25/9/2009 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent and review jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC over its own orders (Application for review, setting aside and/or vacation of orders of 25/9/2009 issued consequent to a Judgment of the same Court of 11/1/1994)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hari v Highlands Homes Investments Co Ltd (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3390 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3390/eng@2026-05-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.