Matiliku v Maingi & another (Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 2161 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a bid to review its land judgment, confirming that disagreeing with a ruling is grounds for appeal, not review.
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 has met the threshold for a review of the judgment delivered on 17th July, 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether an erroneous finding or misapprehension of evidence by the court constitutes a ground for review
No - an erroneous finding is a ground of appeal, not of review; the error must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument.
Relying on National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Njau, the court held that review corrects only apparent errors or omissions that are self-evident. A different view of the matter, an incorrect exposition of the law, or misconstruing a statute cannot ground review. The Applicant's complaint that the court erred in registering the 2nd Respondent as co-owner and in finding no boundary between the parcels amounted to dissatisfaction with the court's findings, not an apparent error on the face of the record.
Whether the documents now produced (search on Ukia/Utaati/1037, the Makueni LDTC 21 of 2007 order and the cadastral map) constitute discovery of new and important evidence
No - the evidence was within the Applicant's knowledge at the time of hearing and could have been tabled before the trial court or adduced on appeal with due diligence.
The Applicant was a party to Makueni LDTC 21 of 2007 and aware of the Respondents' counterclaim that parcel Nzaui/Nziu/803 was ancestral land. Martha Kauma Kavai, the registered owner of Ukia/Utaati/1037, is the wife of Kavai Kinyenze, son of Mukai Kinyenze, so the search was obtainable with due diligence. The Applicant could have applied to adduce additional evidence on appeal; the material therefore fails the due-diligence threshold for review.
Legal principles established
#- A review may only be granted to correct a self-evident error or omission; that another judge could have taken a different view, or that the court misconstrued a statute or reached an erroneous conclusion of law, is not a ground for review.
- Discovery of new and important evidence requires that the evidence could not have been obtained with due diligence at the time of hearing.
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's notice of motion dated 12th September, 2025 seeking review of the judgment of 17th July 2025 is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs, the parties being family members
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Lower court (Makueni Land Disputes Tribunal context; trial court not expressly named)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent power of the court to review its own judgment (grounds of review: error apparent on the face of the record and discovery of new and important evidence)
Relief refused
#Review and setting aside of the judgment of 17th July 2025 to the extent that it introduced the 2nd Respondent as joint trustee and co-registered proprietor of Nzaui/Nziu/803
An erroneous finding or misapprehension of evidence is not a ground for review; it may be a ground of appeal
Review on account of discovery of new and important evidence (cadastral map, search on Ukia/Utaati/1037, order in Makueni LDTC 21 of 2007)
The alleged new evidence was within the Applicant's knowledge at the time of hearing and would have been obtained with due diligence
Costs
No order as to costs - 'The same is dismissed with no order as to costs as the parties are family members.'
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.
From the above analysis, I find that the Applicant’s application is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs as the parties are family members.
An erroneous finding by a court or misapprehension of evidence is not a ground for review. It may be a good ground of appeal.
Nor can it be a ground for review that the court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law and reached an erroneous conclusion of law. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be a ground for review
I therefore find that there is nothing new which the Applicant discovered which would not have been obtained had she exercised due diligence.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Matiliku v Maingi & another (Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 2161 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Appeal No. E006 of 2022 (Notice of Motion dated 12th September, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2161/eng@2026-04-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.