Kiburi v Lowi (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4485 (KLR)

(I.R. 8012/6), though both parcels are subdivisions derived from the same parent title, Title No. I.R. 8012. 2. She avers that she is now in possession of title documents which clearly demonstrate that land parcel No. L.R. 7647/2 (I.R. 8012/6) is distinct from and not the same as land parcel No. I.R. 8012/1. 3. That both land parcel I.R. 8012/1 and land parcel L.R. 7647/2 (I.R. 8012/6) originate from and are subdivisions of land parcel No. I.R. 8012, the parent title. 4. This matter proceeded as a formal proof whereby in a judgment delivered on 4.3.2026 the court dismissed the claim of adverse possession advanced by the plaintiff. 5. I have considered all the arguments raised herein. The Applicant is seeking review/setting aside of the judgment and decree of this court issued on 4.3.2026. 6. Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap.21) Laws of Kenya provides as follows: “Any person who considers himself aggrieved:(a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or (b) By a decree or order from ELCLOS E003 OF 2025 [RULING] Page 2 of 5

page 2 of 5

which no appeal is allowed by this Act, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.” 7. Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules sets out the grounds for review of a judgment. The same provides as follows: “(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved;(a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or (b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or ELCLOS E003 OF 2025 [RULING] Page 3 of 5

page 3 of 5

order, may apply for review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.” 8. See Jeremiah Muku Methodist Church of Kenya Registered Trustees & Another (2009) eKLR. 10. In regard to this matter, the applicant bases her argument on the point of “mistake or error apparent on the face of the record”. The title availed by the plaintiff during the trial was the one where the last registration entries is no. 6 reflecting ownership in favour of Daniel Waithaka Mwangi and Kezia Wanjiru Waithaka as joint tenants. This information was captured at paragraph 6 and 7 of the judgment. The plaintiff did not avail any other title at the trial. As such, I find no error apparent on the face of the records. 9. At paragraph 7 of her supporting affidavit, the applicant avers that she is in possession of title documents which clearly demonstrate that land parcel No. L.R. 7647/2 (I.R. 8012/6) is distinct from and not the same as land parcel No. I.R. 8012/1. This would perhaps bring her arguments in the ambit of discovery of new and important matter of evidence. ELCLOS E003 OF 2025 [RULING] Page 4 of 5

page 4 of 5

However, annexure “ JKK-2” the title availed by the plaintiff is the one for parcel I.R. 8012/6 in the name of Daniel Waithaka Mwangi and Kezia Wanjiru Waithaka who are not the defendants herein. She has still not availed any title in the name of the defendant for parcel I.R 8012/1. As such, the application dated 25.3.2026 is found to be unmerited, the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAHURURU THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS. LUCY N. MBUGUA JUDGE In the presence of: Nancy Mwangi – C/A Kamore h/b for M/s Mutungi for plaintiff Respondent - absent ELCLOS E003 OF 2025 [RULING] Page 5 of 5

page 5 of 5