Churu & 2 others (Suing as the Trustees of PCEA Thindigua Church) v Thuo (Environment and Land Case E159 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4880 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to reinstate a dismissed church land suit, ruling that a lawyer's poor communication is not grounds for review and the proper route was an appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the closure of the parallel suit amounts to discovery of new and important matter under Order 45 Rule 1
It does not; the closure occurred on 2/07/2025, months before the dismissal ruling of 11/11/2025, and was discoverable with due diligence
To qualify for review, discovered information must be a bona fide surprise not discoverable with due diligence. The termination of Milimani ELC Case No. 093 of 2015 predated the dismissal ruling. That the trustees only learned of it later was attributable to a communication breakdown with their handling counsel, which the law does not recognise as a ground for review. The Applicant therefore failed to discharge the strict statutory threshold.
Whether the Applicant approached the court with candour and full disclosure
No; the Applicant's averment of voluntary withdrawal was contradicted by the record showing judicial dismissal, breaching the clean hands principle
The Applicant's supporting affidavit asserted that their advocate withdrew the parallel application, but the Respondent's annexure 'GMT 1' showed the application was dismissed by the court itself. This material contradiction demonstrated a lack of absolute candour and full disclosure, disqualifying the Applicant from the equitable discretion of review under the clean hands principle articulated in Benjoh Amalgamated.
Whether review is the proper remedy against the dismissal order
No; the motion was a disguised appeal and the proper recourse was an appeal to the Court of Appeal
Applying National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau, review is not a right of appeal in disguise; an erroneous decision can only be corrected on appeal. The Applicant's dissatisfaction with the dismissal on the basis of parallel proceedings was, at best, a grievance about an alleged erroneous decision, for which the proper avenue was an appeal, not an application for review.
Legal principles established
#- Review is not an appeal in disguise; a review will only be granted where the conditions in Order 45 Rule 1 are strictly satisfied
- Negligence or a breakdown in communication between a party and their advocate does not constitute a ground for review
- A party seeking discretionary review must approach the court with clean hands and make full and frank disclosure of all material facts
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated 19/01/2026 is found to be misconceived, lacking in merit, and an abuse of the Court process
- 2.The application is dismissed in its entirety
- 3.The interim prayers seeking to review, set aside, and reinstate the Plaintiffs/Applicants' suit for hearing on its merits are declined
- 4.Costs of the application are awarded to the Defendant/Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 3, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Churu & 2 others (Suing as the Trustees of PCEA Thindigua Church) v Thuo (Environment and Land Case E159 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4880 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4880/eng@2026-07-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.