Museto Women Group (Suing through its officials) Sarah Njeri Mwangi & 2 others v Ngugi & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 436 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 1397 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court refused to reopen a judgment because the applicants sat on documents they had all along, confirming that Kenyan courts punish negligence, not just bad luck.
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 Judgement dated 20th June 2024 ought to be reviewed and or set aside
- 2.Who should bear costs of this application?
Key legal issues
#Whether the requirements for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules were met
No. The applicants failed to demonstrate discovery of new and important matter; the alleged documents were in their possession all along and their non-production was negligence, and the claimed incapacitation of the Plaintiffs' Chairperson was not proved.
Section 80 and Order 45 Rule 1 confer discretion to review upon discovery of new and important matter not within the applicant's knowledge despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. The applicants did not identify which new evidence had been discovered, as the documents were in their possession. The claimed psychotherapy-based memory loss of the Chairperson was contradicted by the judge's own observation of her testimony, and no strict proof of the alleged discovery was offered.
Whether review was an appropriate remedy where the underlying judgment had held the suit res judicata
No. Even if review were allowed, the prior judgment's holding that the Plaintiffs' recourse was an appeal would remain, so the Plaintiffs' remedy lay on appeal, not review.
The judgment under review had already found that the same subject matter between the same parties had been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, making the suit res judicata and directing the Plaintiffs to appeal. Allowing review could not alter that position, since the finding flowed from the parties' own pleadings and a second suit could not circumvent it.
Legal principles established
#- An application for review based on discovery of new and important matter or evidence requires strict proof of that allegation
- A party's negligence in failing to produce documents at trial cannot ground review; equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 25th July 2024 seeking review and setting aside of the judgment dated 20th June 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 1st Defendant/Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 9 Rule 9 and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya
Relief refused
#Review and setting aside of the Court's judgment dated 20th June 2024
The applicants failed to prove discovery of new and important matter or evidence and failed to prove the alleged incapacitation of the Plaintiffs' Chairperson; the court found the application to be based on negligence
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant/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.
I also agree with the 1st Defendants/Respondents' submission that if there were any documents that the plaintifis ought to have been produced but did not, then this was negligence on their part.
This court will not allow any party to drag another through a second trial because of their negligence. Equity aids the vigilant not the indolent.
We emphasize that an application based on the ground of discovery of new and important matter an evidence will not be granted without strict proof of such allegation.
In conclusion I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant/Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, the neutral citation, or the specific court/station; only the place of delivery (Kajiado) is given.
The names of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants (other than the Plaintiff/Chairperson deponent) are not stated in the judgment, so the full party names cannot be recorded.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Museto Women Group (Suing through its officials) Sarah Njeri Mwangi & 2 others v Ngugi & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 436 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 1397 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1397/eng@2025-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.