Registered Trustees of Christ Co-Workers Fellowship v Dianga & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 1540 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 3742 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court lifted a stay on a long-running land case because the related case had ended, showing that 'sufficient reason' for review is broader than you might think.
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 Applicant has made out a case for review and setting aside of the orders of 25/01/2022 staying this suit
- 2.Whether there was discovery of new and important matter or evidence
- 3.Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record
- 4.Whether there is any other sufficient reason warranting review
- 5.Whether the Application was brought without unreasonable delay
- 6.Whether the Plaintiff would be unduly prejudiced if the review is granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the discovery of the judgment in ELC 1453 of 2007 constituted new and important matter warranting review
No - the Applicant was aware of ELC 1453 of 2007 at the time the stay order was made, so the information about that suit was not a new discovery.
The stay order of 25/01/2022 was made precisely because of ELC 1453 of 2007, so the Applicant cannot claim discovery of new matter. The differences in parties and suit property between the two suits do not amount to discovery of new and important matter under Order 45 rule 1.
Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record
No - the challenge to the stay order is really a challenge to its merit, which lies on appeal, not review.
Citing Muyodi v ICDC and Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo, the Court held that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and require no elaborate argument. What the Applicant calls an error is a disagreement with the wisdom of the stay order, which is a matter for appeal.
Whether there is any other sufficient reason to warrant review
Yes - the stay was premised on an assumption that the parties and suit property in both suits were the same, which turned out to be untrue; with ELC 1453 of 2007 concluded, it is only just that this suit proceeds.
The Court adopted the view that 'sufficient reason' need not be analogous to the first two grounds. The purpose of the stay (conclusion of ELC 1453 of 2007) has been achieved, no prejudice would befall the Plaintiff, and a full hearing would promote a fair and equitable resolution. Sufficient reason was therefore established.
Whether the Application was filed after unreasonable delay
No - the Application was filed two weeks after the judgment in ELC 1453 of 2007, which was not an unreasonable delay.
Relying on Jaber Mohsen Ali v Priscillah Boit, whether delay is unreasonable depends on the circumstances of each case. Judgment in ELC 1453 of 2007 was delivered on 26/09/2024 and the Motion is dated 08/10/2024, a period of two weeks, which the Court did not treat as unreasonable.
Legal principles established
#- Review may be granted where the Court considers it necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the Court, which must be self-evident and require no elaborate argument.
- Mere error or wrong view of the law is a ground of appeal, not of review.
- 'Any other sufficient reason' under Order 45 rule 1 need not be analogous to the other two grounds for review.
- What constitutes unreasonable delay in a review application depends on the surrounding circumstances of each case.
Court orders
#- 1.The Court does hereby review and set aside its orders of 25/01/2022 staying the instant suit.
- 2.The matter shall be set out down for hearing on priority basis.
- 3.The costs of the Application shall be in the cause.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)
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 Court does hereby review and set aside its orders of 25/01/2022 staying the instant suit.
The matter shall be set out down for hearing on priority basis.
The costs of the Application shall be in the cause.
In my view I take the positon that “any suficient reason” must not be analogous to the grounds of discovery of new evidence and/or error apparent on the face of the record.
it is clear that what is being called into question is the merit of the Court’s determination, a question that falls squarely within the purview of an Appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the Plaintiff and Defendants are not stated anywhere in the judgment; parties are referred to only by role.
The case number of the instant suit is not stated in the judgment.
Internal inconsistency in the dates of the stay order sought to be reviewed - the Grounds of Opposition refer to orders of 25/01/2021 while the application and ruling refer to orders of 25/01/2022.
The Grounds of Opposition as recorded attribute the alleged filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Plaintiff/Respondent though it is the Defendant who is said to have chosen not to appeal, an apparent confusion in the record.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Registered Trustees of Christ Co-Workers Fellowship v Dianga & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 1540 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 3742 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (suit stayed by order of 25/01/2022; relates to ELC 1453 of 2007). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3742/eng@2025-05-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.