Ayora v Odhiambo & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7737 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court should review its orders made on 24th April, 2025 expunging the plaintiff/applicant's reply to the amended replying affidavit and reply to counterclaim
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff/applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for review of the order of 24th April 2025 expunging his reply and reply to counterclaim
No sufficient reason was shown; the mistake was that of counsel who had ample time to file the pleadings, and reliance on a former counsel's supposed mistake was improper where there was no record such pleadings had been prepared
The court set out the grounds for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1: discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, applied for without unreasonable delay. Counsel had been given time from 19th January 2025 to familiarise himself with the case before the April 2025 hearing. Filing the pleadings on the hearing date and attributing the omission to the former advocate was found reckless and unproved. The discretion to review was therefore not engaged.
Legal principles established
#- Review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 requires discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, and the application must be made without unreasonable delay
- The court's discretion to review its own orders is exercised only where sufficient reason is demonstrated
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 9th June, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs in the cause
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; Order 45 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Articles 48, 50 and 159 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Review, setting aside and/or variation of the order of 24th April 2025 sustaining the objection to the adoption and production of the applicant's response and defence to the counterclaim
No sufficient reason was shown; counsel had ample time to prepare and the alleged mistake of former counsel was not proved
Deeming the applicant's response and defence to the counterclaim as duly filed, served and properly on record
It followed from dismissal of the review that the expunged pleadings would not be reinstated
Allowing the adoption, production and reliance on the applicant's response and defence to the counterclaim
Forming part of the dismissed notice of motion
Costs
Costs in the cause
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.
I find no suficient reason to exercise discretion and review the orders made on 24th April, 2025. The notice of motion dated 9th June, 2025 lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. Costs in the cause.
The main grounds for review are therefore; discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or for any other suficient reason and most importantly, the application has to be made without unreasonable delay.
It is also improper for the plaintifi/applicant to continue to rely on the supposed mistake of a former counsel yet there is no record that the former counsel had prepared the same pleadings and failed to file and serve the same.
Issues in the judgment
#The motion is stated to be brought under 'Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Rules' although Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 belong to the Civil Procedure Act, and the court itself later refers to 'Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ayora v Odhiambo & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7737 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7737/eng@2025-11-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.