Agnes Mumbi Karuga v National Irrigation Authority & 4 Others
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to reopen a land case because a forgotten document was always available — an advocate's mistake is not 'new evidence'.
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 Applicant has met the threshold for review of this Court's judgment on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence.
- 2.Who pays the costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the letter dated 2nd April 2000 constitutes new and important evidence warranting review
It does not; it was within the Applicant's knowledge and available at the hearing, and its non-production was an omission, not a discovery.
Order 45 Rule 1 requires that the evidence, after due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced when the decree was made. The Applicant admitted the letter had been availed to her previous advocate who inadvertently omitted it. Discovery and omission are distinct concepts; a mistake of counsel cannot override the express statutory requirements.
Whether the Court could consider the unpleaded ground of error apparent on the face of the record
No; the Court confined itself to the pleaded ground of discovery of new and important evidence.
The ground of error apparent on the face of the record was raised only in submissions, was neither pleaded in the motion nor supported by affidavit. Parties are bound by their pleadings and submissions cannot introduce new grounds.
Whether the failed application for leave to appeal out of time barred the review application
No; the Applicant had not filed an appeal, only sought leave, and the refusal did not oust the review jurisdiction.
The Court held that the application must ultimately stand or fall on whether it satisfies Order 45 Rule 1, regardless of the fate of the leave application before the Court of Appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A document available to a party but not tendered at hearing does not become new and important evidence merely because judgment has been delivered; review under Order 45 Rule 1 requires proof of due diligence and lack of knowledge.
- Submissions cannot introduce a new ground of review not pleaded in the application.
- Refusal of leave to appeal out of time does not by itself oust the High Court's review jurisdiction under Section 80.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 31st October 2024 is without merit and is dismissed.
- 2.The Applicant to meet the Respondents' costs.
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, 2010 (review jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Review, variation or setting aside of the judgment delivered on 31st July 2024
The letter dated 2nd April 2000 was within the Applicant's knowledge and available at the hearing; its omission by counsel does not make it new and important evidence under Order 45 Rule 1.
Costs
The Applicant to meet the Respondents' costs (costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act).
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.
A document which was available to a party throughout the proceedings, but was not produced cannot, without more, become "new and important evidence" merely because judgment has since been delivered.
It is settled law that parties are bound by their pleadings and that submissions cannot introduce a new ground upon which a court is invited to determine a dispute.
That the application is without merit and is dismissed.
That the Applicant to meet the Respondents’ costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Grounds of Opposition dated 28th April 2026 predate the submissions dated 27th April 2026 they accompany, an apparent date inconsistency.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Agnes Mumbi Karuga v National Irrigation Authority & 4 Others", Case Analysis (2026). ELCL JR NO. E003 OF 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5580/eng@2026-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.