Samuel Karithii Rugiri T/A Quick Line Auctioneers v Timothy Muriungi & Oil Com [K] Limited

3. The application is premised on various grounds. The grounds are: The Applicant was duly instructed by OilCom Kenya Limited [the instructing party]; the purpose of the instructions were to implement the eviction notice issued against the respondents; the respondents did not oppose or respond to the eviction notice; the applicant sought police security to implement the eviction notice; the application seeking provision of police security was heard and dismissed by the court; the court rendered a ruling on the 14.05.2026; the court held that the eviction notice could not culminate into or be tantamount to an eviction order; the decision/ruling of the court is fraught with an error and mistake; the error is apparent and remediable vide review; and the applicant has established a basis for review. 4. Additionally, the applicant has posited thus: The provisions of Sections 152 E, 152F and 152 G of the Land Act, 2012 [2016], do not require the filing of a substantive suit once eviction notice has been served; the applicant is at liberty to proceed with eviction; the court’s intervention is only to order police security; and the failure by the court to direct provision of police security amounts to infringement upon the instructing party’s property rights. 5. Moreover, the applicant has contended thus: There are various decisions of the Environment and land court, which have granted enforcement orders on the basis of miscellaneous applications; the applicant herein is entitled to benefit from similar interpretation of the law and the application is meritorious. Page 2 of 10

page 2 of 10

6. The instant application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant [Samuel Karithii Rurigi] sworn on the 11.07.2026. The deponent of the replying affidavit has reiterated the grounds contained in the body of the application. The deponent of the affidavit has thereafter, annexed various documents including: copy of the ruling delivered on the 14.05.2026; copy of the certificate of the official search of the suit property; and copy of the statutory notice relating to Section 152E of the Land Act. 7. The application came up for hearing on the 16.09.2026, whereupon learned counsel for the applicant sought directions of the court as pertains to the hearing and disposal of the application. The counsel proposed to file and serve written submissions. To this end, the court issued directions and ordered that counsel does file written submissions within 3 days. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant filed written submissions dated the 19.09.2026. Learned counsel has highlighted three [3] key issues. The issues are: Whether the applicant was required to institute a substantive suit before seeking an ancillary order of police assistance; whether the implementation of an unchallenged Section 152 E statutory notice requires a separate eviction order of the court; and whether the ruling of 14.05.2026 should consequently be reviewed. 9. Having reviewed, the instant application; the grounds in support thereof; the averments contained in the supporting affidavit; and having taken into account the relevant principles governing review of court orders, one key issue emerge for determination. The issue is: Whether the applicant has Page 3 of 10

page 3 of 10

established an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record to warrant review of the impugned ruling or otherwise. 10.It is pertinent to state that any Applicant, the current applicant not excepted, who seeks to procure an order of review, on the basis of an error or mistake apparent on the face of record, is obligated to clearly define and isolate [sic] the error or mistake. In addition, it is common ground that the error or mistake [if any] must be self - evident. It must be an error that is easily discernable, without undertaking microscopic analysis or evaluation of the evidence or the law. 11.Put differently, an error or mistake apparent must be one that can be discerned and appreciated by the court at a glance. The error must stare the court in the eye. It must equally relate to an issue which does not admit of two or more perceptions or opinions. 12.In the case of NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LIMITED Vs NDUNGU NJAU [1997] KECA 389 (KLR), the court of appeal highlighted the position thus: “A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court. The error or omission must be self evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established. It will not be a sufficient ground for review that another Judge could have taken a different view of the matter. Nor can it be a ground for review that the court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law and reached an erroneous conclusion of law. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be a ground for review.” Page 4 of 10

page 4 of 10

13.Most recently, in the case of National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees v Kenya Tea Growers’ Association & 15 others [2026] KECA 1213 (KLR) the Court of Appeal re-visited the scope of what constitutes an error or mistake apparent on the face of record. The court also drew the dichotomy between an error apparent, on one hand and “a mere error”; or erroneous construction of the law. 14.The court stated thus: “In this regard, we bear in mind the definition of the term “error on the face of the record” by this Court in Muyobi vs Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation [2006] 1 EA 243 as follows:-“… In Nyamogo & Nyamogo -vs- Kogo (2001) EA 174 this Court said that an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case. There is real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of record. Where an error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. An error which has to be established by long drawn process of reasoning or on points where there may conceivably be two opinions, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Again, if a view adopted by the court in the original record is a possible one, it cannot be an Page 5 of 10

page 5 of 10

error or wrong view is certainly no ground for a review although it may be for an appeal…” 15.Has the applicant established and proven an error apparent on the face of the record apparent to warrant an order of review? The crux of the applicant’s application is that: The applicant filed an application dated the 08.04.2026; the applicant sought provision of Police Assistance and security to remove the respondent from the suit property and demolish structures erected on the suit property; the court struck out the application; the court held that there was no eviction order capable of being executed; the court misconstrued the import of Section 152E and 152F of the Land Act; the said provisions do not require that an eviction order be procured; and in any event, the applicant was not seeking an eviction order. 16.Further, and in addition, the applicant asserts that there are different decisions from the Environment and Land court where some judges, have found and held that no eviction order is required ones the eviction notice has been duly served vide Sections 152 E and 152 F of the Land Act, 2012 [2016]. Furthermore, the applicant has also posited that some judges have held that a miscellaneous application can be deployed for purposes of obtaining police security/escort, to implement a Section 152 E Eviction Notice, without the necessity of an eviction order. 17.If I hear learned counsel for the applicant correctly, same is suggesting that because there are contrary opinions, emanating from other judges of the Environment and Land Court, then I must concur with the said Page 6 of 10

page 6 of 10

opinions, irrespective of the fact that sections 152 A to 152 G of the Land Act, does provide the manner and mode approaching the court, ones an eviction notice has been served. 18.Equally, learned counsel for the applicant is suggesting that an eviction notice, by and of itself, can be enforced by way of removal of the trespasser and demolition of [sic] illegal structures. Simply put, the counsel for the applicant is suggesting that an eviction notice can and ought to be deemed as [sic] constituting an eviction order. 19.Additionally, Learned Counsel contends that once the land owner has issued and served an eviction notice, which is [sic] not opposed, then the land owner has the liberty to approach a court of law by way of miscellaneous application and [sic] obtain police security, to enforce [sic] eviction notice. 20.The issues that have been raised and regurgitated by learned counsel for the applicant, are issues which were isolated; itemized and distilled by this court, at the foot of the ruling delivered on the 14.05.2026, and thereafter exhaustively discussed. I repeat that the question of whether an eviction notice can [sic] be enforced, without a formal court order, was extensively dealt with at the foot of my ruling. 21.Perhaps, it is apposite to add that an eviction notice, equates or equals to “demand notice”. The question that does arise is whether, a demand notice, which is not responded to can constitute [sic] judgment for execution? I am afraid that an eviction notice, just as a demand notice, is a formal notice and when same is not complied with, then the issuing party, must obtain a formal order of eviction. Simply put, no eviction can Page 7 of 10

page 7 of 10

be undertaken without a formal order of eviction, duly issued by competent court. 22.I hasten to state that what the applicant is seeking is to invite this court to sit on appeal on its decision. The applicant is inviting me to set aside my well-reasoned ruling, duly informed by a plethora of decisions, including ;Gusii Mwalimu Investment Co. Ltd & 2 others v Mwalimu Hotel Kisii Ltd [1996] KECA 118 (KLR), where the Court of Appeal highlighted that no eviction can be undertaken without a formal court order. 23.In my humble view, the existence of two schools of thoughts in the Environment and Land Court, does not provide a basis for review. The applicant herein ought to have taken cognizance of the dicta in the case of NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LIMITED vs NDUNGU NJAU [1997] KECA 389 (KLR). 24.The court stated thus: “It will not be a sufficient ground for review that another Judge could have taken a different view of the matter. Nor can it be a ground for review that the court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law and reached an erroneous conclusion of law. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be a ground for review.” Conclusion 25.The Applicant herein was obligated to establish and prove the existence of an error apparent on the face of the record. An error or mistake on the Page 8 of 10

page 8 of 10

face of the record, is contra-distinct from an incorrect exposition of the law. Where a judge is wrong or the decision rendered is erroneous, a claimant cannot revert to the same judge, vide a subtle invitation, to have the judge sit on appeal on his/her judgment/ruling. 26.The current application was a disguised appeal by and on behalf of the Applicant. It was clearly intended to defeat the cause of justice. It was an abuse of the due process of the court. 27.In a nutshell the application is bereft of merits and courts dismissal. Final orders: 28.In the end, the final orders that commend themselves to the court are: i. The Application dated 11.07.2026 be and is hereby Dismissed. ii. No orders as to costs. 29.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU ON 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 OGUTTU MBOYA; FCIArb; CPM [MTI-EA]. JUDGE. In the presence of: Court Assistant: Zakayo/Mukami Mr. Mwangi Ndegwa for the Applicant N/a for the Respondent N/a for the Instructing Party Page 9 of 10

page 9 of 10

Page 10 of 10

page 10 of 10