Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment extract

Kenyariri v Double Win Company Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E288 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5967 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
29 August 2025
2,114 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff/applicant moved the court by notice of motion dated 21st March 2025, brought under Order 45 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking review of the court's finding at paragraph 12 of its ruling delivered on 20th March 2025, and a finding that the 4th defendant was under a duty to produce the 1st defendant's account statements and a duly executed discharge of charge over title no. Nairobi/Block 19/242. The applicant alleged an error apparent on the face of the record, contending that the discharge of charge annexed to the 1st defendant's replying affidavit referred to a non-existent title number 1/95. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants responded through replying affidavits, deposing that LR No. 1/95 and Nairobi/Block 19/242 refer to the same property, that the loan was repaid in full and the discharge of charge registered. The 4th defendant submitted that review is a narrow and exceptional jurisdiction confined to errors that are self-evident. Relying on the Court of Appeal authority in Akoko and the 4th defendant's authorities including Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo and National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau, the court applied the principles in Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya, holding that an error apparent on the face of the record must be manifest and self-evident without lengthy reasoning. The court found the applicant was attempting to relitigate the notice of motion of 19th September 2024 and that his remedy, if aggrieved, was an appeal. The application was dismissed with costs to the defendants/respondents on 29th August 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff established sufficient grounds for review of the ruling of 20th March 2025 under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

The application failed; there was no error apparent on the face of the record, and the applicant was attempting to relitigate matters raised in a prior application and should have appealed instead

Reasoning

The court adopted the test that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and detectable without long debate or elaborate reasoning. The applicant's complaint about the title number in the discharge of charge required examination and argument, and the 4th defendant's response and annexures answered the question. The applicant sought a different conclusion in his favour, which would amount to sitting in appeal over the ruling; his remedy was an appeal.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and require no elaborate reasoning or argument to establish
  • Review proceedings are not an appeal; a court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment or re-appraise evidence under the guise of review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 21st March, 2025 is dismissed with costs to the defendants/respondents
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenyariri v Double Win Company Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E288 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5967 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5967/eng@2025-08-29

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.