Mburu & 34 others v National Land Commission & 8 others
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to excuse a litigant from a costs order, ruling that blaming your advocate's inaction is not enough to reopen a case.
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 satisfied the legal threshold for review of the ruling dated 2nd December, 2025
- 2.Whether a stay of taxation of the Bill of Costs should issue
- 3.Whether the Applicant should be removed from the proceedings retrospectively with effect from 6th July, 2025 and the costs order set aside against her
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant met the Order 45 Rule 1 threshold for review
She did not; no new evidence, no error apparent, and no sufficient reason was demonstrated
The court applied Order 45 Rule 1 and the Evan Bwire and Eldores Grains authorities. The Applicant's instructions to her former advocate were never acted upon and remained a mere intention; no affidavit from the advocate confirmed the instructions. Blaming the advocate without evidence of personal follow-up over five months is not excusable mistake or sufficient reason for review.
Whether the Applicant could be removed retrospectively and the costs order set aside
No; she remained a party when the suit was struck out with costs and remains a party for taxation purposes
Since review failed, retrospective removal from 6th July 2025 could not be granted. Consequently the Bill of Costs remains properly on record against her, and her only avenue is to negotiate with the Respondents; her remedies lie elsewhere, not through review.
Legal principles established
#- A client cannot rely solely on an advocate's inaction as excusable mistake; the client must show steps taken to pursue the matter
- Review is granted only on strong grounds, particularly where new evidence not obtainable with due diligence is shown
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 18th March, 2026 is dismissed with costs
- 2.The taxation of the Bill of Costs shall proceed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction and review jurisdiction under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Stay of taxation of the Bill of Costs
Application dismissed; no review threshold met so nothing to stay
Review of the ruling of 2nd December, 2025
Applicant failed to demonstrate new evidence or sufficient reason; mere blame of advocate is insufficient
Retrospective removal of the Applicant from the proceedings
Review having failed, retrospective removal cannot be granted
Setting aside of the costs order against the Applicant and striking out of the Bill of Costs
Applicant remained a party when the suit was struck out with costs and remains a party for purposes of taxation
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents
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.
It is not enough simply to accuse the advocate for failure to inform as if there is no duty on the client to pursue his matter. If the advocate was simply guilty of inaction that is not excusable mistake which the court may consider with some sympathy.
An application for review will only be allowed on strong grounds particularly if its effect will amount to re-opening the application or case afresh.
The Applicant has not met the threshold for review as she has not demonstrated the existence of new evidence which she could not have gotten even after exercising due diligence.
Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 18th March, 2026, lacks merit and is therefore dismissed with costs. The taxation of the Bill of costs shall proceed.
Issues in the judgment
#Duplicated phrase in disposition paragraph
Stray letter in analysis paragraph
Counsel appearances list 2nd and 5th Respondents while the response was by 2nd and 8th Respondents
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mburu & 34 others v National Land Commission & 8 others", Case Analysis (2026). Land Case E091 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5919/eng@2026-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.