Magdaline Jepkoech Chesang v John Kiprop Kurui
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Eldoret dismissed a landowner's attempt to fix a title registration mix-up through review, confirming review cannot correct errors that never arose during the original hearing.
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 satisfied the conditions for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 2.If so, whether the prayers sought (review, rectification of register, injunction, joinder, retrial) should be granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the alleged swapped registration of parcels 297 and 126 constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new matter justifying review
No - the ground-location error never arose at the hearing, so it is not an error apparent on the face of the record within Order 45
The court accepted that a registration error existed, evidenced by the Koitoror Farmers Company letter about the Registry Index Map swap. However, because the ground location of the parcels was never an issue at trial, the error is extrinsic to the record and cannot ground review under Section 80 and Order 45.
Whether the court can order rectification of registers in favour of non-parties on review
No - rectification affecting non-parties is beyond the scope of review
The proposed rectification would alter rights of persons who were not party to the original suit, including the proposed interested parties. Review is statutorily circumscribed and cannot be used to introduce new causes of action or new parties into a concluded suit, as that would alter the character of the case.
Legal principles established
#- An error that did not arise or feature during the hearing cannot constitute an error apparent on the face of the record for purposes of review
- Review cannot be used to introduce a new cause of action or new parties to a concluded suit
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 63 and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rules 1, 2(2) and 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Review/recall of the judgment of 25.9.24
The alleged registration error did not arise during the hearing and is not an error apparent on the face of the record
Rectification of the registers of parcels 297 and 126
Beyond the scope of review as it affects rights of non-parties
Temporary injunction and joinder of proposed interested parties
Not necessary once review is declined
Retrial under Order 45 rule 5
Fell with the dismissal of the review application
Costs
No order as to costs - the application was dismissed 'with no order as to costs'
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.
The scope of review is circumscribed by the law and a review is not intended to introduce a new cause of action and new parties to a concluded suit as this would alter the character of the case
the issue of the ground location of the two parcels never arose during the hearing and therefore it does not constitute and error apparent on the face of the record
In view of the foregoing, the application for review lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Delivery date of October 2026 is inconsistent with application dated 13 June 2025 and Grounds of Opposition dated 26.6.26
Paragraph 3 attributes both parcel allocations to the Defendant, apparently a drafting error
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Magdaline Jepkoech Chesang v John Kiprop Kurui", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No 2 of 2022 (O.S). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6301/eng@2026-10-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.