Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC 70 of 2019 (Nairobi)· [2026] KEELC 4802 (KLR)

Safeway Hipermarkets Ltd v National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 70 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4802 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 July 2026
JKJ. G. Kemei
1,541 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court refused to change when interest starts on a Kshs 30.7 million refund, ruling that review applications cannot introduce new claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant (Plaintiff in ELC 70 of 2019, Nairobi) applied by notice dated 25/2/26 under Sections 80, 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules for review of the Court's judgment delivered on 10/12/25. It sought variation of paragraph 87(b) of the judgment so that interest on Kshs 30,712,320/- (the refund of the purchase price) would accrue at court rates from 18/7/2017, the date of the National Land Commission's final decision directing the Respondent to compensate the Applicant, rather than from the date of judgment. The Applicant argued there was an error on the face of the record since the Respondent had known of its obligation to refund since the NLC decision. The Respondent opposed, contending there was no such error, that the period for interest is a matter of judicial discretion, and that the application sought to reopen the suit and radically change the judgment. Kemei J framed a single issue: whether the Applicant was entitled to review. The Court restated the review grounds and held that an error apparent on the face of the record must be manifest without long-drawn reasoning. Examining the plaint, the Court found the Applicant had pleaded interest from the date of payment and was now 'changing the goalposts' by demanding interest from 18/7/2017 - a new, contested claim not raised at trial. Relying on Origo v Munagala, the Court held that an erroneous conclusion is a ground of appeal, not review. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application meets the thresholds for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

No. The alleged mis-award of interest from the date of judgment instead of 18/7/2017 is not an error apparent on the face of the record; it raises a new contested claim not pleaded in the plaint

Reasoning

The Court restated the review grounds: new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason, all without undue delay. An error apparent on the face of the record must be evident without long-drawn reasoning, and a mere erroneous decision is a ground of appeal. The Applicant's request to compute interest from the NLC decision date introduced a new claim, contrary to its pleadings, requiring evidence canvassed at trial.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An error apparent on the face of the record must be manifest and open, not one requiring long-drawn reasoning on contested facts; a mere erroneous conclusion of law or evidence is a ground of appeal, not review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicant's application dated 25/2/26 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 80, 1A, 1B and 3A 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, "Safeway Hipermarkets Ltd v National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 70 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4802 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC 70 of 2019 (Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4802/eng@2026-07-23

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.