Opande v Opondo & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E042 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4922 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to review its eviction ruling because the applicant failed to update it that the counterclaim had been struck out — an appeal, not review, was the right route.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the ruling delivered on 20th March, 2025 warranting review and/or variation
Key legal issues
#Whether the ruling of 20th March, 2025 contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45
No error apparent on the face of the record existed; the ruling correctly reflected the position that the counterclaim was pending at the time the application was heard
The application of 23rd August, 2024 was heard on 23rd October, 2024, before the counterclaim was struck out on 20th December, 2024. As at hearing, the counterclaim was indeed pending, so the court's finding was correct on the material then before it. The Applicant failed to bring the striking-out ruling to the court's attention before the impugned ruling was delivered, so any fault lay with the Applicant, not the court.
Legal principles established
#- An error apparent on the face of the record must be one that stares one in the face with no two reasonable opinions; a merely erroneous or arguable decision is not a ground for review but for appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 21st March, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Section 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 9 Rule 9, Order 45 Rules 1, 2 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1, 13(7) and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Review and/or variation of the ruling made on 20th March, 2025
No error apparent on the face of the record; at the time the application of 23rd August, 2024 was heard, the counterclaim was still pending, and the Applicant failed to bring the striking-out of the counterclaim to the court's attention before the impugned ruling
Costs
No orders as to costs
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.
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.
The application is therefore hereby dismissed. No orders as to cost.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering skips from 21 to 26, and paragraph 17 records the ruling date inconsistently ('scheduled for 27th February, 2024' though context shows 2025)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Opande v Opondo & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E042 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4922 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). KISUMU/MC ELC/E250/2023 (related application dated 21st March, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4922/eng@2025-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.