National Land Commission v Muriithi (Suing as the Administrators of the Estate of Stephen Mwangi Muriithi (Deceased)) (Environment and Land Appeal E24 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3666 (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 appeal is rightfully before this court
- 2.Whether the appeal is an abuse of the court process
Key legal issues
#Whether an appeal lies from a tribunal ruling (as opposed to a judgment) under the Land Act
Yes - the ruling of 22nd October 2025 is a decision of the tribunal that can be appealed; the right of appeal is not confined to judgments.
Section 133D of the Land Act permits a party dissatisfied with a 'decision' of the Tribunal to appeal on grounds that the decision was contrary to law, that a material issue of law was not determined, or that procedural error affected the merits, and provides that an appeal may be on a question of law only. The court held the provision refers to decisions generally, not only judgments, so the appeal against the review ruling was properly before the court.
Whether the tribunal correctly dismissed the appellant's application for review
Yes - the tribunal properly directed itself on the law and exercised its discretion judiciously; there was no basis for interference.
Review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 requires new and important matter not obtainable with due diligence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, without unreasonable delay. The documents relied on bore the appellant's own stamp and were internal documents within its possession; the claim of counsel's inadvertence was unsubstantiated, demonstrating lack of diligence. The evidence would also not have led to a different determination since proprietorship had been determined by a competent court.
Whether the appeal is an abuse of the court process
Yes - the Memorandum of Appeal raises issues relating to the judgment yet the ruling appealed is confined to the question of review, creating a misalignment; the appeal was dismissed.
The court, relying on HA v LB [2022] eKLR, cautioned against litigants pursuing review and appeal in a manner creating multiple fronts of litigation. The appellant's sequence - seeking review and then appealing - demonstrated an attempt to re-open issues conclusively determined. The grounds in the memorandum raised factual issues pleaded in the review application rather than attacking the ruling itself.
Legal principles established
#- A ruling of the Tribunal, including a ruling on a review application, is a 'decision' of the Tribunal appealable under Section 133D of the Land Act; the right of appeal does not attach only to a judgment.
- The requirement of due diligence under Order 45 Rule 1 is a substantive threshold, not a mere technicality; review cannot be used to cure an applicant's failure to produce evidence already in its possession.
- The ground of 'any other sufficient reason' for review, though broad, must be exercised judiciously, failing which parties would abuse the review jurisdiction to re-litigate concluded matters.
Court orders
#- 1.This appeal therefore lacks merit and is dismissed.
- 2.The ruling of the Land acquisition tribunal delivered on 22nd October 2025 is hereby upheld.
- 3.The appellants to bear the costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Land Acquisition Tribunal
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 133D of the Land Act (appeal from the Tribunal to the court on questions of law)
Relief refused
#The Claimant's prayer to strike out the appellant's Memorandum of Appeal dated 28th October 2025 and the record of appeal dated 19th November 2025
The court found the ruling of 22nd October 2025 was a decision of the tribunal capable of being appealed, but nonetheless proceeded to dismiss the appeal on its merits rather than strike it out, upholding the tribunal's ruling dismissing the review application.
Costs
The appellants to bear the costs.
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.
This appeal therefore lacks merit and is dismissed.
The ruling of the Land acquisition tribunal delivered on 22nd October 2025 is hereby upheld.
The requirement of due diligence under Order 45 Rule 1 is not a mere technicality but a substantive threshold
Review cannot be used as a mechanism to cure such omissions.
To hold otherwise would open the door to abuse of the review jurisdiction by parties seeking to re-litigate matters that ought to have been addressed earlier.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the actual parties are not stated anywhere in the judgment; only the deponents to the affidavits (Gitonga Mwangi Muriithi for the Claimant and Brian Ikol for the Appellants) are named.
The case number of this matter is not stated in the judgment.
The court in which the judgment was delivered is not expressly named in the text; only 'NAIROBI' appears in the delivery clause.
The parties are referred to inconsistently - the appellant is styled 'Appellants/Respondents' and the claimant 'Claimant/1st Respondent' - reflecting crossed appeal/submission roles; the judgment is nonetheless an appeal from a tribunal ruling.
The document is headed as a determination of an interlocutory application to strike out the appeal, yet the final orders dismiss the appeal on its merits and uphold the tribunal ruling, going beyond the relief sought in the application.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "National Land Commission v Muriithi (Suing as the Administrators of the Estate of Stephen Mwangi Muriithi (Deceased)) (Environment and Land Appeal E24 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3666 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3666/eng@2026-06-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.