Raghwani & 2 others v Kerai (Legal Representative of the Estate of Kanji Mavji Kerai) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E042 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7684 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed an estate's attempt to overturn a 2023 land decree so it could accept a better offer, because the application came far too late.
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 Decree issued on 9th February 2023 should be reviewed
Key legal issues
#Whether the Decree issued on 9th February 2023 should be reviewed
The application for review fails; the Respondent did not establish the grounds for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The court set out the statutory criteria for review: discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, plus absence of unreasonable delay. The only explanation offered was a better third-party offer received more than two years after the decree, which does not satisfy the statutory parameters. The court associated itself with the Court of Appeal authorities on the requirement of promptness and found the delay inordinate and no sufficient cause shown, dismissing the application.
Legal principles established
#- An application for review must be made without unreasonable delay and must demonstrate discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 7th November 2024 seeking review of the decree of 9th February 2023 is dismissed
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 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction of the court that passed the decree)
Relief refused
#Review of the decree made on 9th February 2023
The Respondent did not satisfy the parameters of review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules; there was inordinate delay and no sufficient cause demonstrated
Authority to sell the 25% undivided share in LR No. 209/4593/2 to third party Jim Wachira Kabiru
The application for review was dismissed, so the ancillary relief fell away
Costs
No costs order appears in the judgment; the application notice sought that costs be provided for, but the judgment's disposition does not state a costs order.
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.
In the circumstances, I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will proceed to dismiss it.
For an application for review to succeed the Applicant has to demonstrate that there was discovery of new and important evidence which was not within his knowledge at the time of the original decision was made.
It is also an important requirement that the application for review should be made without unreasonable delay…
….An order for review is restricted to parameters set out by the law..
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's title, case number and neutral citation are not stated in the text provided
No costs order appears in the disposition despite the application seeking costs
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Raghwani & 2 others v Kerai (Legal Representative of the Estate of Kanji Mavji Kerai) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E042 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7684 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7684/eng@2025-11-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.