Teja & 5 others v Munga & 12 others (Environment & Land Case 62 & 109 of 2013 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 334 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court refused to review its earlier ruling, confirming that disagreeing with a judgment is grounds for appeal, not review.
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 applicants have met the threshold for review of the judgement delivered on 1st November 2023, in the manner prayed.
- 2.Whether the applicants have made a reasonable case for the court to order forensic investigations on death certificate number 673871 of Haiderali Popat Teja.
- 3.Who pays the costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the judgment of 1st November 2023 contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review
No error apparent on the face of the record was established; the applicants' complaints were perceived errors of law or dissatisfaction with the court's discretion, which are grounds of appeal.
The court applied the tests in National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau and Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo: an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument. The applicants were merely asking the court to reverse its own decision because they believed it should have reached a different conclusion, which is a matter for appeal, not review.
Whether the court should order forensic examination of the death certificate of Haiderali Popat Teja
The application for forensic investigation failed together with the dismissed motion.
Having found that the review threshold was not met and that the underlying grievance was a dissatisfaction with the judgment amenable to appeal, the court found no reasonable basis to accede to the prayer for forensic examination of the death certificate, and dismissed the entire application with costs to the applicants.
Legal principles established
#- Review jurisdiction is limited and does not extend to a complaint that the court would have reached a different decision on the evidence; such dissatisfaction is a ground of appeal, not review.
- A court cannot sit on appeal over its own decision in the guise of review.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 14th February 2024 is dismissed.
- 2.The applicants to bear their own 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(e), 80, 95, 100 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rule 6(2) & (3), Order 45, Order 50, Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules; sections 3 & 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act
- Consolidated with
- ELC No. 62 of 2013
Relief refused
#Stay of execution and status quo pending determination of the application
The application itself was dismissed as having no merit.
Setting aside, review and/or variation of the judgment and decree delivered 1st November 2023
No error apparent on the face of the record was established; the grievances amount to grounds of appeal, not review.
Forensic examination of Death Certificate Number 673871 of Haiderali Popat Teja
No reasonable case was made for the order; the issue fell with the dismissal of the application.
Costs
The applicants to bear their own costs, as they were unsuccessful and none of the respondents participated in the hearing.
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.
This court declines the invitation by the applicants to as it were, to sit on appeal over its own decision. The court finds no merit in the Notice of Motion dated 14th February 2024.
a perceived error of the reasoning of a judge/judicial oficer on the law and facts presented cannot be said to be a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, that can be subject matter of review.
That the said application has no merit and is hereby dismissed. b. The applicants to bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The notice of motion's prayers refer to the judgment as delivered on 15th November 2023 and on 1st November 2023 in different prayers.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Teja & 5 others v Munga & 12 others (Environment & Land Case 62 & 109 of 2013 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 334 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC No. 109 of 2013 (Consolidated with ELC No. 62 of 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/334/eng@2025-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.