Kirinya v Thuranira (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1837 (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 the Applicant duly filed and served his submissions as pertains to the appeal or otherwise
- 2.whether the application beforehand has met/ satisfied the threshold to warrant review or otherwise
- 3.what orders ought to issue or be granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant duly filed and served his written submissions within the court's directions
The submissions dated 26th January 2026 were in fact lodged in the court tracking system on 2nd February 2026 at 5.15pm, outside the timelines and after the court had fixed judgment, and were never served
The court commissioned a check of the court tracking system which showed the submissions were filed on 2nd February 2026 at 5.15pm, well after the 21-day deadline and after judgment had been scheduled. Counsel was found to have backdated the submissions and litigated by ambush, contrary to Article 50(1) of the Constitution and sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act. Non-compliance should have been addressed by seeking extension of time.
Whether the application met the threshold for review under Order 45 rule 1
No ground of review was pleaded or substantiated; the application was defective and legally untenable
The grounds for review are discovery of new and important evidence, error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient cause. The Applicant did not disclose any ground in the body of the application, and the arguments on new evidence and apparent error surfaced only in submissions. Non-consideration of submissions is not new evidence, and no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated in the court's re-evaluation of the trial evidence.
Legal principles established
#- Submissions are not evidence; failure to consider or file submissions does not constitute discovery of new and important evidence for review
- A party seeking review must plead the particular ground of review in the body of the application before substantiating it
- A 'mere error' is distinct from an error apparent on the face of the record; only the latter may ground review
- Every court process must be served on the adverse party; filing submissions without service amounts to litigating by ambush
Court orders
#- 1.The amended Notice of Motion Application dated 19th February 2026 be and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Costs of the Application be and are hereby awarded to the Respondent (the Appellant in the main appeal).
- 3.The Cost(s) shall be agreed upon and in default be taxed in the conventional manner.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Lower Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 63(e) and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya; Order 42 rule 6 and Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Review and/or setting aside of the judgment/ruling delivered on 5th February 2026
The Applicant neither pleaded the ground for review in the body of the application nor substantiated any of the known grounds under Order 45 rule 1
Stay of execution of the decree issued in the judgment of 5th February 2026
Fell with the dismissal of the application for review
Costs
Costs of the Application awarded to the Respondent (the Appellant in the main appeal), to be agreed upon and in default taxed in the conventional manner.
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 assistant logged into the court tracking system and established that the Applicant had filed submissions dated 26th January 2026. However, it transpired that the said submissions were filed on 2nd February 2026 at 5.15pm
An advocate cannot seek to circumvent clear directions of the court by distortion and manipulation. Such conducts do not sit/ portend well with the due process of the court
the Applicant herein has not brough himself within the four corners of the provisions of Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. Having failed to bring himself within the prescription of the said order, the request for review does not lie
The amended Notice of Motion Application dated 19th February 2026 be and is hereby dismissed.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number of the appeal or the identity of the parties to the appeal by name (the Respondent is unnamed)
The court is not expressly identified in the judgment; the coram only shows 'JUDGE' and delivery at Isiolo
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kirinya v Thuranira (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1837 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (amended Notice of Motion dated 19th February 2026 in an appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1837/eng@2026-03-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.