County Government of Taita Taveta v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock Development & 6 others (Petition E008 of 2024) (Constitutional and Human Rights) [2026] KEELC 3251 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court set aside its own judgment because a key party was never told about the case, confirming that hiding proceedings from affected parties invalidates decisions.
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 established grounds for review of the Judgment delivered on 23rd October 2025
- 2.What orders should issue as to costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established grounds for review under Order 45 Rule 1
Review allowed: the deliberate non-disclosure of the Petition to the successful tenderer constituted new and important matter and sufficient reason for review, and breached natural justice
The court found the non-disclosure of the Petition proceedings by the 2nd Respondent, who knew of both the proceedings and the applicant's interest, to be a material procedural impropriety. The applicant's ignorance was not self-inflicted since the proceedings were concealed from it. The complete deprivation of the opportunity to be heard violated audi alteram partem, Articles 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution, outweighing the doctrine of finality. A judgment so delivered is incurably defective and a rehearing with the applicant's participation was ordered.
Whether the doctrine of finality bars setting aside a judgment delivered in breach of natural justice
Finality is not absolute; it yields where a judgment was delivered in breach of natural justice
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Albert Chaurembo Mumba, the court held that where a breach of natural justice is identified, the decision is a nullity - a 'no decision' - and this applies notwithstanding the finality doctrine. The exceptional circumstances here (deliberate non-disclosure, complete absence of the interested party, breach of constitutional rights) outweighed finality considerations.
Costs of the review application
Each party to bear its own costs notwithstanding the general rule that costs follow the event
Although the general rule is that costs follow the event, the court exercised its discretion in the interests of justice to order each party to bear its own costs of the application.
Legal principles established
#- Where a judgment has been delivered in breach of natural justice and procedural fairness, the interests of justice may favour review notwithstanding the doctrine of finality
- Non-disclosure of proceedings to a party with a direct and identifiable interest constitutes both 'new and important matter' and 'sufficient reason' for review under Order 45 Rule 1
Court orders
#- 1.The Judgment of the Court delivered on 23rd October 2025 and its consequential orders is reviewed and set aside
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (review jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Costs of the application to the applicant
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs despite the applicant's prayer for costs
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the application
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 Judgment of this Court delivered on 23rd October 2025 and its consequential orders is hereby reviewed and set aside.
Each party to bear own costs of the application.
Where a judgment has been delivered in breach of fundamental principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, the interests of justice may favour review notwithstanding the finality doctrine.
The legal framework for review under Order 45 Rule 1 has evolved to encompass circumstances where a party has been excluded from proceedings determining its fundamental rights and interests, through no fault of its own.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records contradictory dates regarding the fate of PPARB Application No. 96 of 2025 - first a determination on 27th October 2025 cancelling the termination, then the respondents asserting it was dismissed or struck out on 13th January 2026, without reconciling the two
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Taita Taveta v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock Development & 6 others (Petition E008 of 2024) (Constitutional and Human Rights) [2026] KEELC 3251 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition E008 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3251/eng@2026-05-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.