Wafula v Kassim & another (Environment and Land Case 62 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 5118 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a bid to reopen a lost land case, ruling that claiming you didn't know court procedure is not a valid reason for 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 established sufficient grounds to warrant the review of the judgment of this court
- 2.Whether the applicant should be granted leave to adduce additional evidence after the delivery of judgment
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established grounds for review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1
The application fails; ignorance of procedure is not a statutory ground for review and the delay of one year and three months was inordinate with no explanation
The court set out the statutory grounds for review: discovery of new and important matter not producible with due diligence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, applied for without unreasonable delay. The applicant, having represented himself, claimed ignorance of the procedure for producing documents. The court held ignorance is no defence, the documents were always within his knowledge, and the delay from judgment of 9th May 2023 to filing on 23rd August 2024 was inordinate and unexplained. The application therefore fell outside Order 45 Rule 1.
Whether leave should be granted to adduce additional evidence after judgment
The prayer is moot once the review prayer fails
The prayer to adduce documents as new evidence was tethered to the review of the judgment. Since the court found no basis for review, there was no pending matter justifying admission of additional evidence; the documents were within the applicant's knowledge at trial and could have been produced with due diligence.
Legal principles established
#- Review is a limited and exceptional remedy and cannot be used to re-open a case, fill gaps in evidence, or mount an appeal in disguise
- Ignorance of the law/procedure is no defence and does not constitute a ground for review
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 23rd August 2024 is dismissed with costs
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
#Stay and/or variation of the orders of 9th May 2023 (review of judgment)
Ignorance of procedure is not a ground under Order 45 Rule 1 and the delay of one year and three months was inordinate and unexplained
Leave to introduce and adduce additional evidence
The prayer became moot once review failed; the documents were within the applicant's knowledge at trial
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs (costs to the respondent)
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.
review is a limited and exceptional remedy. An applicant must demonstrate that the matter relied upon falls within the statutory grounds and that the application is not an attempt to re-open the case, fill gaps in evidence, or mount an appeal in disguise.
The evidence sought to be produced on reopening of the case was within the applicant’s knowledge at the time of trial.
In my view, that delay is inordinate and no explanation for the delay has been provided.
In the premises, I find and hold that the application dated 23rd August 2024 lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The respondent's submissions are dated 22nd April 2026 and the Grounds of Opposition 30th January 2026, while the applicant's submissions are dated 7th July 2026; the chronology of filings appears unusual but is internally stated in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wafula v Kassim & another (Environment and Land Case 62 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 5118 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5118/eng@2026-07-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.