Too & 3 others v Ali (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3534 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court set aside its own judgment after finding the defendant in a land case was likely an impostor, and ordered a fresh hearing with oral evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants demonstrated sufficient reason under Order 45 Rule 1 and Section 80 to warrant review and setting aside of the judgment
The application for review succeeds because the evidence of the true registered proprietor indicates the proceedings were conducted by an impostor, constituting 'any other sufficient reason'
The court considered the affidavit of Ali Abdi Ali, the true registered proprietor, who disowned participation in the suit, together with that of his daughter. It found the facts would make it practically impossible for the genuine proprietor to have sworn the affidavits or instructed counsel. This reinforced the applicants' position that the proceedings were conducted by an impostor, which the court held constitutes sufficient reason within Order 45 Rule 1 to review and set aside the judgment.
Scope of 'any other sufficient reason' as a ground for review
The court has an unfettered discretion to review for any sufficient reason; the ground need not be analogous to the other enumerated grounds
Tracing the jurisprudence from Sadar Mohamed v Charan Singh through Yusuf v Nokrach to Wangechi Kimita & Another v Mutahi Wakabiru, the court adopted the position that restricting 'any other sufficient reason' to grounds analogous to those in the rule would be a clog on the unfettered right given to the court by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court therefore exercised a broad discretion in assessing sufficient reason.
Whether the previous judgment's reference to a site visit was supported by the record
The court could not confirm there was a site visit, as the record contained no directions or notes depicting one
On examining the court record, the judge found no directions for a site visit despite the judgment of 6th February 2026 referring to one. Since the originating summons proceeded by way of affidavit evidence and no notes depicting a site visit existed, the court found it hard to confirm that such a visit occurred, undermining the integrity of the impugned judgment.
Legal principles established
#- The court has an unfettered discretion to review its own decrees or orders for any sufficient reason
- A court possesses residual jurisdiction to reopen a decided matter in cases of fraud, bias or other injustice notwithstanding the absence of explicit statutory jurisdiction
Court orders
#- 1.That the judgment delivered on the 6th February 2026 is hereby set aside
- 2.That the proceedings are hereby reopened and the suit be heard afresh by way of viva voce evidence
- 3.That the Plaintiffs/Applicants do bear costs of the Application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Too & 3 others v Ali (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3534 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC OS E002 OF 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3534/eng@2026-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.