Cattwright v Chief Magistrate Court Milimani Law Courts & 7 others; Ngugi & another (Defendant) (Environment and Land Petition E041 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 819 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed an attempt to review its earlier ruling, holding that an appearance by the Attorney General counts as participation.
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 dated 16th May 2024 was served upon the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents
- 2.Whether the ruling dated 19th November 2024 should be reviewed or set aside
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents were served and participated in the proceedings
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents were represented by the Attorney General who appeared and sought time to respond; they had formally participated.
The court invoked Article 156 establishing the Attorney General as principal legal advisor, and Kenya Bus Services Ltd v Ministry of Transport, holding the AG is the proper party for government entities. The record showed the AG's representative appeared and sought five days to file a replying affidavit. Absent evidence the AG declined or lacked authority, representation had been invoked and acknowledged in open court, defeating the claim of non-service.
Whether grounds for review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1 were established
No new and important matter, no error apparent on the face of the record, and no sufficient reason was demonstrated.
The court restated the review grounds via Benjoh Amalgamated and Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board. Applying Nyamogo & Nyamogo and Timber Manufacturers, no error staring one in the face was identified. Applying Wachira Karani and The Official Receiver, the Applicants were represented and given an opportunity to respond but filed nothing, so sufficient cause was not shown, though the application was timely.
Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay
Yes, the application was filed without unreasonable delay, but this alone could not save it.
Although the court found the delay requirement satisfied, the Applicants still had to establish one of the statutory grounds for review. Having failed on service/participation and on the substantive grounds of review, the timely filing did not alter the outcome.
Legal principles established
#- Once State Counsel appears in court and seeks time to respond, the government parties are deemed aware of, and to have formally participated in, the proceedings through their mandated representative.
- The party alleging service bears the burden of proof, and failure to serve pleadings may render proceedings irregular.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 20th December 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Petitioner
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 50, 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Order 45 Rules (1) and (2) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Variation, review, discharge or setting aside of the orders issued on 19th November 2024
Applicants did not demonstrate discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason
Setting aside of the proceedings and the impugned ruling and rehearing of the application dated 16th May 2024 de novo
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents had participated through the Attorney General, who appeared and sought time to respond
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the Petitioner.
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 upshot of the foregoing is that the application is without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Petitioner.
Once the State Counsel appeared in Court and sought time to respond, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents were not only aware of the proceedings but had also formally participated in them through their legally mandated representative.
For it to be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, it must be obvious and self-evident and does not require an elaborate argument to be established.
Suficient cause is a question of fact, and the court has to exercise its discretion in the varied and special circumstances of the case at hand.
Issues in the judgment
#The relief sought includes review under Order 45 but counsel also invoked Order 12 Rule 7 (setting aside ex parte orders), and the court's analysis blends both jurisdictions without clearly distinguishing them.
The judgment refers to the matter as a Petition with Petitioners and Respondents, but the parties' exact designations (e.g., 5th, 7th, 8th Respondents vs Petitioners in E271 of 2024) are inconsistently stated.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cattwright v Chief Magistrate Court Milimani Law Courts & 7 others; Ngugi & another (Defendant) (Environment and Land Petition E041 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 819 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 20th December 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/819/eng@2026-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.