Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Case No 2 of 2022 (O.S)· [2026] KEELC 6301 (KLR)

Magdaline Jepkoech Chesang v John Kiprop Kurui

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
6 October 2026
JOJ.M. Onyango
1,949 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Eldoret dismissed a landowner's attempt to fix a title registration mix-up through review, confirming review cannot correct errors that never arose during the original hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Magdaline Jepkoech Chesang, sought review of the court's judgment of 25 September 2024, which had held that the Defendant held 5 acres of parcel Koitoror/Tuiyoluk Block 1 (Koitoror)/297 in trust for her. She applied under Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 63 and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking recall of the judgment, rectification of the registers of parcels 297 and 126 (alleging the Registry Index Map swapped the parcel numbers and registered owners), a temporary injunction against eviction, joinder of proposed interested parties, or in the alternative a retrial. The application followed discovery, during ground implementation of the decree with a surveyor, that occupation did not correspond with the registered titles, a swap confirmed by Koitoror Farmers Company Ltd on information from the County Surveyor and Land Registrar. The Defendant opposed, arguing the application was an abuse of process, sought fresh litigation post-judgment, and that the court was functus officio. The court framed one issue: whether the conditions for review were satisfied. Holding that the registration swap, though real, never arose during the hearing and so was not an error apparent on the face of the record, and that rectification would affect non-parties' rights beyond the scope of review, the court declined review, found it unnecessary to address injunction or joinder, and dismissed the application with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the alleged swapped registration of parcels 297 and 126 constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new matter justifying review

Holding

No - the ground-location error never arose at the hearing, so it is not an error apparent on the face of the record within Order 45

Reasoning

The court accepted that a registration error existed, evidenced by the Koitoror Farmers Company letter about the Registry Index Map swap. However, because the ground location of the parcels was never an issue at trial, the error is extrinsic to the record and cannot ground review under Section 80 and Order 45.

p. 9
02

Whether the court can order rectification of registers in favour of non-parties on review

Holding

No - rectification affecting non-parties is beyond the scope of review

Reasoning

The proposed rectification would alter rights of persons who were not party to the original suit, including the proposed interested parties. Review is statutorily circumscribed and cannot be used to introduce new causes of action or new parties into a concluded suit, as that would alter the character of the case.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • An error that did not arise or feature during the hearing cannot constitute an error apparent on the face of the record for purposes of review
  • Review cannot be used to introduce a new cause of action or new parties to a concluded suit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for review is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 63 and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rules 1, 2(2) and 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Magdaline Jepkoech Chesang v John Kiprop Kurui", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No 2 of 2022 (O.S). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6301/eng@2026-10-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.