Ole Purkei v Pasua & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E026 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 2290 (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 plaintiff's application meets the threshold for review
Key legal issues
#Whether the Chief's letter dated 18th June 2025 constitutes new or important matter or evidence discovered after judgment justifying review under Order 45 rule 1
It does not. The letter was written at the plaintiff's request after judgment; the Chief was a competent and compellable witness who was never summoned during the hearing despite adequate mechanisms in the Evidence Act, so due diligence was not demonstrated; and the letter contained nothing new or of probative value, being at best opinion without legal or factual basis
The court applied the principles in Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal: Ex parte Apollo Mboya on review for discovery of new matter. The evidence must not have been obtainable earlier with due diligence. Here the Chief was never compelled to testify or produce documents despite the availability of summons under the Evidence Act. Further, the letter's contents were opinion evidence lacking probative value, so the review ground failed entirely.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed on review based on discovery of new evidence, the applicant must show the evidence was not within his knowledge and could not be produced earlier despite due diligence
- Review applications will only be allowed on very strong grounds, particularly where their effect would be to reopen a case afresh
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 6th August 2025 seeking review is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the defendants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Review of the judgment of 25th April 2025 dismissing the plaintiff's trespass claim
The application did not meet the threshold for review on the ground of discovery of new evidence; the Chief's letter was prepared after judgment, the Chief was a compellable witness never summoned despite due diligence requirements, and the letter contained nothing new or of probative value
Costs
Costs to the defendants - 'It is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendants.'
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 application by the plaintifi is unmerited and has clearly not met the threshold for review under the law. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendants.
I do agree with the holding in Evan Bwire v Andrew Nginda (cited by Mativo J in the above referenced case) to the efiect that an application for review will only be allowed on very strong grounds particularly if its efiect will amount to reopening the application or case a fresh.
Mere discovery of new of important matter or evidence is not suficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ole Purkei v Pasua & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E026 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 2290 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2290/eng@2026-04-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.