Ess Pee Investment v Degisat Services Limited
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court refused to review a landlord-tenant judgment, confirming that losing parties cannot use review to relitigate legal arguments they simply disagree with.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the alleged error apparent on the face of the record justified review
No - the judgment under review considered matters beyond the form of the notice, including the tenant's rent default and eviction, so the alleged error was not self-evident
The court noted that although Justice Naikuni found a controlled tenancy and a defective notice, paragraph 45 of the judgment shows the termination was also justified on the tenant's rent default and the fact that the tenant had already been evicted and a new tenant installed. Disagreement with the court's legal exposition or conclusion is not a ground for review.
Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay
No - the seven-month delay was unexplained because the current advocates were on record before judgment was delivered
The applicant attributed the delay to the indisposition of its previous advocate, but the court found that Messrs Wameyo Onyango & Associates came on record before judgment and Mr. Wameyo was present when judgment was delivered on 31st January 2025, so the explanation was untenable.
Legal principles established
#- Review is limited to the grounds in Order 45: discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, and must be made without unreasonable delay
- An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident; an incorrect exposition of law or misconstruction of a statute is not a ground for review
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 12th August 2025 as amended on 3rd March 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Respondent
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (review of judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ess Pee Investment v Degisat Services Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6205/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.