Okanga v Ondego & another (Environment and Land Case 225 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 5531 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kakamega court allowed a party to change lawyers after judgment but refused to reopen a 2019 land ruling, citing delay and lack of clear error.
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 deserves to be granted leave to change his advocate after judgment
- 2.Whether the applicant has met the threshold for review
Key legal issues
#Leave to change advocate after judgment
Allowed - the applicant is entitled to change his advocate with leave of court.
Order 9 Rule 9 requires leave where a party, having been represented, wishes to change advocate or act in person after judgment. The court held this engages the Article 50(2)(g) constitutional right to representation of one's choice and granted leave to Omwando Mbaka & Co. Advocates to come on record for the 2nd defendant.
Whether the threshold for review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1 was met
Not met - application for review dismissed.
Review may lie on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, made without unreasonable delay. The mutations dated 2015 and 2017 were available before the 2019 judgment; title deeds procured in 2022 could not be deployed to reopen the judgment; no error staring the court in the face was shown; and the four-and-a-half-year delay was inordinate.
Legal principles established
#- An error apparent on the face of the record must be clear and stare one in the face; an error requiring long drawn reasoning is not a ground for review.
- A party cannot obtain documents years after judgment and seek to have them produced on review; that is a second bite at the cherry.
- A party represented by an advocate may only change advocate or act in person after judgment with leave of court under Order 9 Rule 9, and this engages the constitutional right to representation of choice.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the firm of Omwando Mbaka & Co. Advocates to come on record for the 2nd defendant
- 2.The notice of motion dated 17th May 2024 seeking review of the judgment delivered on 5th November 2019 dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree); Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Review and/or setting aside of the orders made on 5th November 2019
No error apparent on the face of the record; documents were available before judgment or procured years after it; the application was brought after inordinate delay of over four years
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant
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.
Mere error or wrong view is certainly no ground for review though it may be one for appeal.
That will amount to granting the applicant a second bite at the cherry, which the law frowns upon.
A purported error that needs to be excavated from a heap of facts through a long and winding explanation, like the one given in this case by the applicant and the plaintifi, cannot be termed as an error apparent on the face of the record.
Save that the firm of Omwando Mbaka & Co. Advocates is granted leave to come on record for the 2nd defendant in this matter, I find no merit in the application dated 17th May 2024 seeking review of the judgment delivered on 5th November 2019, which I dismiss with costs to the 1st defendant.
Issues in the judgment
#The plaintiff's name is spelled 'Okanga' in the description of the replying affidavit while the party is elsewhere referred to as 'plaintifi' without a full caption identifying case number or party names in a formal heading in this extract.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okanga v Ondego & another (Environment and Land Case 225 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 5531 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5531/eng@2025-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.