Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 24th July 2024· [2025] KEELC 8589 (KLR)

Kimani & another v Meeli & another (Environment and Land Case 108 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 8589 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 December 2025
1,049 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to review a land judgment, confirming that disagreeing with a decision is not enough—you must show an obvious error.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado determined a Notice of Motion dated 24th July 2024 by the 1st Plaintiff, Peter Mungai Kimani, seeking review of the judgment delivered on 14th March 2024, which had declared the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs entitled to equal shares in land parcel Kajiado/Lorngusua/109. The applicant asked the court to set aside that declaration and to reconsider documentary evidence said to show differing contributions towards the purchase of the suit land. The application was opposed by the 2nd Defendant/Respondent's replying affidavit and grounds of opposition by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. The court framed a single issue: whether the application was merited under Order 45 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Reviewing the record, the court noted the Memorandum of Sale showed both purchasers paid the purchase price of Kshs.1,000,000, the transfer in exercise of power of sale was to both plaintiffs in equal shares, and the title was issued to them as joint owners; there was no evidence the 1st Plaintiff paid more to be entitled to a larger share. Relying on National Bank of Kenya Limited v Ndungu Njau and Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Limited, the court held that review requires an error apparent on the face of the record and that mere disagreement with the outcome is not a sufficient ground. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant established a ground for review under Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

The application failed: there was no error apparent on the face of the record, no new evidence, and no other sufficient reason; the documentary evidence of joint purchase and equal-share transfer supported the original judgment

Reasoning

The court revisited the documentary evidence: the Memorandum of Sale named both purchasers who paid Kshs.1,000,000; the transfer of charge in exercise of power of sale was to both in equal shares; and the title deed was issued to the two plaintiffs as joint owners. In light of the authorities on review, mere disagreement with the outcome or a claim of differing contributions, without evidence of greater payment, did not disclose an apparent error warranting review.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Review may only be granted to correct an error apparent on the face of the record; it is not a ground for review that another judge could have taken a different view or reached a different conclusion of law
  • The court's discretion to review must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously, on one of the established grounds of discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, without unreasonable delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 24th July 2024 seeking review of the judgment delivered on 14th March 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kimani & another v Meeli & another (Environment and Land Case 108 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 8589 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 24th July 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8589/eng@2025-12-04

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