Wangolo v Kasambula & another (Civil Appeal 156 of 2018) [2025] KECA 226 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that land bought after a court judgment—especially to defeat that judgment—gives the buyer no protection, and the title can be cancelled.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether Olao, J. exercised his judicial discretion judiciously in declining to review the judgment on the grounds raised by the appellant
- 2.Whether the appellant, who acquired his title post-judgment, was condemned unheard in breach of Articles 47, 48 and 50 of the Constitution
- 3.Whether the application for review met the threshold under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key legal issues
#Judicial review of a judge's discretion to refuse review of a judgment
Olao, J. exercised his discretion judiciously in refusing to review a judgment delivered on merit
The court applied the Shah vs Mbogo test, asking whether the judge considered extraneous matters or failed to consider relevant ones. It found no apparent error on the face of the judgment, no discovery of new material, and no misdirection. A merit judgment is not capable of being set aside, and the Order 45 conditions for review were not demonstrated.
Requirements for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The appellant failed to demonstrate any of the grounds for review
There was no apparent error on the face of the judgment, no discovery of relevant material that could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, and nothing to show the judge considered extraneous or irrelevant matters or failed to consider relevant ones. The application for review was also filed inordinately late, as the court below had found.
Titles obtained in contempt of court orders
Titles procured by sub-dividing and transferring suit land contrary to a subsisting judgment were void and properly cancelled
The sub-division and transfers were done after judgment and in total disregard of it, in an attempt to extinguish the subject matter of the suit and frustrate its execution. Both the trial judge and Olao, J. condemned the conduct, and this Court found those sentiments appropriate. The issue of bias against the appellant was misplaced.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will only interfere with a discretionary decision of a judge where it is shown the judge acted whimsically, misdirected himself, considered extraneous matters or failed to consider relevant matters, resulting in a wrong decision.
- A purchaser of land after judgment, who was not a party to the suit, cannot claim to have been condemned unheard where the sub-division and transfer were done after the court's determination in an attempt to frustrate the judgment.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the 1st respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- ELC Case No. 177 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Environment and Land Court ruling (the judgment does not cite a specific jurisdictional provision)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the Ruling dismissing the application for review
The learned Judge exercised his discretion judicially; the conditions for review under Order 45 were not demonstrated
Claim that the appellant was condemned unheard
The appellant bought the land post-judgment and was not a party when the suit was heard and determined on its merits
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
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 test for this is whether the appellant had satisfactorily demonstrated that in reaching his decision, the learned Judge acted whimsically or misdirected himself in the exercise of his discretion and as a result arrived at a wrong decision.
He bought the land post judgment and he cannot, therefore, complain that he was condemned unheard.
It is clear from the record that the sub-divisions were done after the court had already made its determination, in an attempt to frustrate the judgment of the court.
We find this appeal totally devoid of merit and dismiss it with costs to the 1st respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the conditions for review as being set under 'Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Act' in one passage, while elsewhere correctly referring to Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wangolo v Kasambula & another (Civil Appeal 156 of 2018) [2025] KECA 226 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (ELC) appeal against the Ruling of Boaz B. Olao, J. in ELC Case No. 177 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/226/eng@2025-02-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.