Thuita & 2 others v Mwangi (Legal representative of the Estate of Francis Mwangi Njuguna) & 4 others (Land Originating Summons E020 & E051 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 4853 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Murang'a dismissed a request to review its ruling, confirming that a party's own mistakes cannot be fixed through review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to review the ruling of 11-2-2026
The Court has power to review its own ruling but only within the narrow grounds of Order 45 rule 1.
The Court accepted it could review its ruling of 11-2-2026, but stressed that the power is confined by Order 45 rule 1 to cases where no appeal has been preferred, where there is discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. The motion had to fit within those grounds to succeed.
Whether the party's mistaken admission is an error apparent on the face of the record
No - a party's own error or mistaken admission is not an error apparent on the face of the record.
Relying on National Bank of Kenya Ltd vs Ndungu Njau, the Court held that the error must be self-evident and in the Court's record. A party's wrong evidence, wrong legal argument or mistaken concession does not qualify. The Applicant's inadvertent admission in her replying affidavit was a party's error and could not ground review.
Leave to file further affidavit clarifying the error
The Applicant may file additional evidence or amend pleadings, but that does not warrant review and exposes her to cross-examination and credibility risk.
The Court observed it would not restrict a party in the evidence filed, and the 1st Respondent remained free to file additional evidence or amend pleadings. However, that freedom did not justify review of the ruling, and her two conflicting sworn positions on occupation would expose her to cross-examination and a credibility risk.
Prejudice to the Plaintiffs
The Plaintiffs would suffer prejudice through delay and increased cost of litigation.
The Court found the motion had caused delay in prosecuting the suit and was increasing the cost of litigation, to the Plaintiffs' prejudice. This reinforced the dismissal of the motion.
Legal principles established
#- An error apparent on the face of the record for purposes of review is an error in the Court's own record, order, judgment or decree, not an error made by a party.
- Review under Order 45 rule 1 is confined to cases where no appeal has been preferred, where there is discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason.
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 30-3-2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Plaintiffs
- 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, "Thuita & 2 others v Mwangi (Legal representative of the Estate of Francis Mwangi Njuguna) & 4 others (Land Originating Summons E020 & E051 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 4853 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). MRG ELC E020 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4853/eng@2026-07-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.