Ogola (Donee suing on behalf of Oliver Owuor Tambo-Donor) v Oloo & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 52 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a landowner's bid to review a judgment, ruling that a nine-month unexplained delay and already-available documents don't justify reopening a case.
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 application (for extension of time to seek review and admission of new evidence) is meritorious
- 2.who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether there was unreasonable delay in bringing the review application
A delay of about nine months was inordinate and unexplained
The judgment was delivered on 14th February 2024 and the application filed on 8th November 2024. The Applicant's explanation - that she spent time obtaining documents from the lands office - was rejected because the documents were or ought to have been in her possession as donee of a power of attorney, and she produced no evidence particularising difficulties at the lands office.
Whether the evidence the Applicant sought to introduce qualified as new evidence under Order 45 Rule 1
It did not; the documents were readily available and within her knowledge at the time of the decree
Succession documents, the bank slip, land control board application and KRA payment records were in her custody or accessible with minimal effort. Documents obtainable with due diligence before the decree cannot qualify as new and important matter justifying review.
Whether review should be granted in the interest of justice notwithstanding the delay
No; the discretion to enlarge time was declined
Applying Salat and Mohamed v Diamond Trust Bank, extension of time is discretionary and equitable; the Applicant failed to lay a basis to the satisfaction of the court, and allowing the application would prejudice the Respondents who had begun execution under a decree and warrant of arrest.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable, discretionary remedy available only to a deserving party who explains the delay and shows no prejudice to the other side
- An application for review must be made without unreasonable delay and new evidence must be matter that due diligence could not have produced at the time of the decree
- A party claiming to act as a donee of a power of attorney must annex the power of attorney; otherwise the deposition may be inadmissible hearsay
Court orders
#- 1.Prayers 2, 3 and 4 of the Applicant's application declined and the entire application dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant pursuant to section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the court and enabling provisions of law (Order 45 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Rules, 2010)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to enable review of the judgment of 14th February 2025
Inordinate, unexplained delay of about nine months in filing the application
Leave to introduce new and compelling evidence
The documents were obtainable with due diligence or already within the Applicant's knowledge when the decree was passed
Review of the judgment with findings that there are no records of Amollo Omari Obondo's ownership and that the Respondents' purchases were not lawful
Application not merited; allowing it would reopen the case and give the Applicant a second bite at the cherry
Costs
The Applicant shall have the costs of the application pursuant to the provisions of section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (as recorded in the ruling, though the application was dismissed)
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.
The court having considered the inordinate delay in filing the application coupled with the absence of new compelling evidence declines the invitation to enlarge time to allow the review of its judgment delivered 14th February 2024.
The import of the foregoing is that prayers 2, 3 and 4 of the Applicant’s application are declined: the entire application is not merited. The Applicant shall have the costs of the application pursuant the provisions of section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
To permit the applicant to file the documents would be reopen the case and give the applicant a second bit at the cherry, to the prejudice of the Respondents.
this court finds that there that the evidence does not meet the threshold of ‘‘new evidence’’ as contemplated under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal contradiction on the date of the judgment sought to be reviewed - the heading and prayer refer to 14th February 2025 while the analysis repeatedly uses 14th February 2024
Costs order appears contradictory: the application was dismissed yet costs were awarded to the unsuccessful Applicant, while prayer 4 sought costs for the Applicant and the Respondents sought costs for themselves
Applicant described as 'the appellant/Applicant' although the matter before the court is a review application in the first instance
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogola (Donee suing on behalf of Oliver Owuor Tambo-Donor) v Oloo & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 52 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 8th November 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/52/eng@2026-01-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.