Van Den Brande Jozef J & S Investments Limited v Kizondo & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E055 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5841 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court corrected a clerical error in its own orders, confirming that obvious mistakes in court documents can be fixed quickly through 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 Chamber Summons Application dated 24th February, 2025 has made out a case for the review of the ruling of the Honourable Court dated 13th February, 2025, per section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act & Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 2.Who will bear the Costs of Chamber Summons Application dated 24th February, 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether an error apparent on the face of the record justified review of the ruling of 13th February 2025
Yes - the orders mistakenly referred to Kwale/Tiwi Beach/933 instead of the correct parcel Kwale/Tiwi Beach/393, an obvious, self-evident error apparent on the face of the record
The Applicant's application of 30th August 2024 sought an inhibition over Kwale/Tiwi Beach block/393, but the orders granted referred to Kwale/Tiwi Beach/933, a title that did not exist as far as the case was concerned. Applying the principles in Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo and Timber Manufacturers v Nairobi Golf Hotels, the discrepancy was obvious and self-evident, requiring no elaborate argument. The application was also lodged without unreasonable delay, having been filed on 24th February 2025, following a ruling delivered on 13th February 2025. Sufficient reason for review was therefore demonstrated.
Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay and for sufficient reason
Yes - the eleven-day interval between the ruling (13th February 2025) and the application (24th February 2025) was reasonable, and sufficient reason was demonstrated
The court noted that review is a discretionary, equitable remedy that must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. The Applicant satisfied the ingredients: he was aggrieved by an order, demonstrated an error apparent on the face of the record, and acted promptly. Citing the Official Receiver and Liquidator v Freight Forwarders Kenya Ltd, the court accepted that 'sufficient reason' need not be confined to the discovery of new matter or error apparent where the interests of justice so require.
Who should bear the costs of the application
The court elected to make no orders as to costs despite the Applicant's success
While costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the successful party is typically entitled to costs, the court retained discretion. In the present case, the court exercised that discretion in favour of having the costs in the cause, presumably because the correction preserved the suit land and balanced the parties' conflicting interests.
Legal principles established
#- Review under Section 80 and Order 45 lies only on the limited grounds of discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, and must be made without unreasonable delay
- An error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious, self-evident and not require elaborate argument to establish
- Costs follow the event; the successful party is typically entitled to costs unless there are compelling reasons to decide otherwise
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons application dated 24th February, 2025 be and is hereby found to have merit and is allowed with no orders as to costs
- 2.Leave is hereby granted for review of the ruling of the Honourable Court dated 13th February, 2025, per section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act & Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and an order be and is hereby made to review the ruling and orders of the Court dated 13th February, 2025
- 3.A correction of the annexed orders of the Court to change the title number upon which an inhibition was ordered, from Land Reference Numbers Kwale/Tiwi Beach/933, to the correct Land Reference Number Kwale/Tiwi Beach/393
- 4.There shall be no orders as to the cost of the Chamber Summons Application dated 24th February, 2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
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.
That the Chamber Summons application dated 24th February, 2025 be and is hereby found to have merit and is allowed with no orders as to costs.
That leave is hereby granted for review of the ruling of the Honourable Court dated 13th February, 2025, per section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act & Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and an order be and is hereby made to review the ruling and orders of the Court dated 13th February, 2025.
That further to b) above, a correction of the annexed orders of the Court to change the title number upon which an inhibition was ordered, from Land Reference Numbers Kwale/ Tiwi Beach/933, to the correct Land Reference Number Kwale/Tiwi Beach/393.
For it to be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, it must be obvious and self-evident and does not require an elaborate argument to be established.
Section 80 gives the power of review and Order 45 sets out the rules. The rules restrict the grounds for review.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the Respondent and Interested Party are not given anywhere in the judgment; they are referred to only generically
The court held costs would be 'in the cause' yet the final orders state 'no orders as to costs' - the two passages are in tension
The court recites the purpose of the application as amending the Order on Costs, which does not match the relief sought (correction of the title number)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Van Den Brande Jozef J & S Investments Limited v Kizondo & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E055 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5841 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons Application dated 24th February, 2025 (suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5841/eng@2025-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.