Kamau & 42 others v Leonid Ltd (Environment and Land Case 253 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 4412 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the application is fatally defective for having been filed by an advocate not properly on record under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 2.Whether the application meets the grounds for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 3.Whether review is available where the party has already pursued and concluded an appeal against the same judgment
- 4.Whether the alleged new evidence (the 2024 gazette notice) constitutes new and important matter discovered after due diligence
- 5.Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay
Key legal issues
#Change of advocate after judgment without leave under Order 9 Rule 9
The application filed by the incoming firm of Martin Tindi and Company Advocates, which never obtained leave to come on record, is a nullity and fatally defective
The court adopted S.K. Tarwadi v Veronica Muehlemann on the protective purpose of Order 9 Rule 9 and held that neither an order of the court nor a consent/notice of change was effected. The new firm's mere notice of appointment did not regularise its position, so the application filed through it was incompetent.
Availability of review after a concluded appeal
Having pursued an appeal (Mombasa Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2021) which was heard and determined, the plaintiffs could not seek review of the same decree
Relying on Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Limited, the court held that a party cannot pursue both an appeal and a review; choosing appeal extinguishes the right to review. The plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed, making the review application incompetent on this additional ground.
Discovery of new and important matter and unreasonable delay
The 2024 gazette notice was not new and important matter capable of supporting review of a 2020 judgment, and the application filed in January 2026 was made with unreasonable delay
The grounds of review under Section 80 and Order 45 Rule 1 require new evidence that existed before judgment and was undiscoverable with due diligence, plus an application without unreasonable delay. The gazette notice was created in 2024, after judgment, the hearings it announced had already occurred rendering it redundant, and over a year elapsed between discovery and filing, six years after judgment.
Relevance of the gazette notice to the issues determined at trial
The gazette notice would not have affected the determination of the adverse possession claim, which was the dispute at trial
The respondent argued, and the court accepted in effect, that the trial dispute concerned the plaintiffs' attempt to defeat the defendant's title through adverse possession; a 2024 gazette notice of compensation hearings by the National Land Commission for highway dualling had no bearing on that determination.
Legal principles established
#- Once judgment is rendered, an advocate cannot come on record in place of the trial advocate without an order of the court under Order 9 Rule 9, and proceedings filed through counsel not properly on record are a nullity
- Review is not available to a party who has already pursued an appeal against the same decision; appeal and review cannot be pursued concurrently
- New and important matter for review must have existed before judgment; material created after judgment cannot ground a review of that judgment, and the application must be made without unreasonable delay
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 13th January 2026 seeking review and setting aside of the judgment and orders of 21st July is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Defendant/Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction); Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules raised on change of advocates
Relief refused
#Setting aside and review of the judgment and orders delivered on 21st July and unconditional leave to the parties to prosecute/defend based on new evidence
The application was filed by an advocate without leave under Order 9 Rule 9, was made with unreasonable delay approximately six years after judgment, the alleged new evidence was created after judgment, and review is unavailable after a concluded appeal
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the defendant/respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I do agree with the respondent that the firm of Tindi and advocates has not obtained the leave of court to come on record and therefore the proceedings are a nullity.
Where an appeal has been determined, a review is not allowed.
The alleged new and important evidence was discovered in the year 2024, but the application was filed more than one year after the discovery of the evidence. The alleged important evidence should have existed before judgment and not after judgment.
The application has no merit and is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not identify the court, case number, station, or the name of the judicial officer; it ends only with 'SIGNED BY/FOR: THE JUDICIARY OF KENYA'.
The date of delivery of the judgment under review is stated inconsistently: the applicant refers to 21st July 2022 and '21st July, 2020', while the respondent refers to a judgment rendered on 21st September, 2020.
The date the appeal was filed and determined is internally contradictory: filed 6th October 2023 but determined 6th October 2021.
The transcript contains garbled/OCR-corrupted text (e.g. 'afiected', 'suficient', 'Plaintifi's') and misplaced numbering within block quotations.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau & 42 others v Leonid Ltd (Environment and Land Case 253 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 4412 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4412/eng@2026-07-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.