'The Application
Loise Wambui Kahenya has come to this court with an application dated 26th May 2025 seeking orders that this Honorable Court be pleased to review its judgment delivered electronically on 9th May 2025 and or decree to incorporate an order against Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani (1st defendant) and Joshua Gitiha Nganga (sued as legal representative to the Estate of the late Sybella Wanjiku Gitiha (2nd defendant) jointly and or severally in respect to ELC No. 85 of 2014 consolidated with ELC No.160 of 2012 wherein ELC No. 160 of 2012 is the lead file, to incorporate the prayers contained in the Further Further-Amended Plaint dated 8th November 2024 and filed on 18th December 2024 for vacant possession in respect to all those parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/settlement Scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329 and Orders of eviction of the defendants jointly and or severally, their children, agents and or servants therefrom.
Moreover an Order for removal of the cautions registered against Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/329.
Furthermore, that the Officer Commanding Station, Bahati Police station to supervise the eviction of the Defendants from all those parcels of land known as Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Tittle No. Nakuru/Bahati/329.
Lastly that orders of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, children, servants and agents from in any manner whatsoever interfering with the plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of all those parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/settlement scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329 or dealing with the same in any manner detrimental to her interest.
Costs of the application be provided for. The application is based on grounds that there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the judgment and or record.
The application is supported by the affidavit of the said Loise Wambui Kahenya wherein she states that the judgment of this Honorable court was delivered electronically on 9th May 2025. In its judgment, the Honorable court dismissed the plaintiffs'' case (ELC 160 of 2012) in the applicants favor. ELC No. 160 of 2012 being the lead file that had been consolidated with ELC No-85 of 2014 in which applicant was the Plaintiff and Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani and Joshua Gitiha Nganga (sued as the legal representative to the Estate of the late Sybella Wanjiku Gitiha), were the defendants.
The judgment inadvertently omitted the prayers contained in her Further Amended Plaint in ELC No. 85 of 2014. She beseechs this Honorable Court to review its judgment to incorporate the prayers contained in her said Further Amended Plaint in ELC No 85 of 2014 to enable her get the judgment debtors and or their servants and agents evicted. Towards enjoying the fruits of judgment. She further beseechs this Honorable court to order for removal of the cautions registered against Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/329 and to issue orders of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, their children and agents from in any manner whatsoever interfering with plaintiffs'' quiet enjoyment of all those parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bphati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329 dealing with the same in any manner detrimental to her interest.
The applicant laments that unless the inadvertent mistake or error on the face of the judgment or records is rectified she stands to suffer irreparably since the defendants either by themselves, agents and or servants are in occupation of the two parcels of land and she is unable to enjoy the fruits of the judgment without vacant possession provided. The application has been preferred without undue delay and will be prosecuted with due dispatch. The Respondents will not suffer any prejudice since the judgment will incorporate the totality of the two consolidated matters.
The Responce
In the replying affidavit the respondent Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani states that the judgment was delivered on the 9th day of May 2025 wherein the suit was dismissed and each party was to bear own costs. The plaintiff has proffered an appeal in the court of appeal which is pending. The plaintiff’s application for stay pending appeal was disallowed on 25th September 2025. The respondent believes that the applicant’s recourse is to appeal. That the application for review has been filed because the applicant slept on her rights to appeal and did not file his notice of appeal in time.
The respondent states that having rendered the judgment, this honorable court is functus officio and that any further inquiry can only be done in the court of appeal. Ultimately, that the application has been brought to court after inordinate delay in violation of the principles governing application for review.
Rival Submissions
In her submissions, the applicant relies on order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 that underpins the grounds for review of a judgment thus where:-
a. There is discovery of new and important matter or evidence;
b. There is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
c. For any other sufficient reason.
According to the applicant’s counsel, the Court in its judgment delivered on 9th May, 2025 through which it dismissed the Plaintiffs case, inadvertently omitted to incorporate the prayers in ELC No. 85 of 2014, in the Applicant’s further Amended Plaint dated 8th November, 2024. The omission of the reliefs for vacant possession, eviction, removal of cautions, and permanent injunction is a clear error apparent on the face of the record because the Court was obligated to pronounce itself on all issues raised in the consolidated pleadings. The instant application has been brought without delay. The error complained of is self-evident from the pleadings and judgment. Unless corrected, the omission renders the judgment incomplete and incapable of giving the Applicant the fruits of litigation, notwithstanding that the Court found in her favor.
The Respondents remain in unlawful occupation of the parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329, thereby denying the Applicant the benefit of her judgment. Granting the orders sought will not prejudice the Respondents, since they lost their case and have no subsisting proprietary interest in the suit properties.
The applicant relies on the case of National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau [19971 eKLR the Court of Appeal stated as follows:
“A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court. The error or omission must be self-evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established."
The respondent submits on her part that the applicant has not met the threshold for grant of the order for review . That the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court to review its own decisions is a narrow but vital one, grounded in the need to uphold justice and prevent manifest error, The law as it stands, recognizes that while finality of litigation is essential, Justice equally demands that no party should suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record or from a judgment that fails to reflect the true intention Court. The purpose of review therefore, is not to afford an unsatisfied litigant a second bite at the cherry, but to enable the Court to correct an evident mistake, consider newly discovered evidence which could not with due diligence have been produced earlier, or address any other sufficient reason that would make it unjust to let the decision stand. It is a jurisdiction exercised sparingly and with great caution, to balance the twin imperatives of finality in litigation and the ends of justice.
The threshold for grant of the order for review distills from the tenor of the joint provisions of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and order 45 of the Civil procedure rules. Section 80 gives the power of review while rule 45 sets out the threshold for the same. The rule limits review to the following grounds:
a discovery of new and imponent matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made or;
b. on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
c. for any other sufficient reason and whatever the ground there is a requirement that the application has to be made without un reasonable delay.
In her written submissions, the Defendant/Applicant anchors her application on the ground of "error on the face of the. record". It is therefore important, in the first instance, for this Court ascertain what amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record.
The respondent invites the Court to be persuaded by the case of Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya (2019) eKLR which held as follows:
“In Nvamoqo & Nvamoqo v Koqo, discussing what constitutes an error on the face of the record, the court rendered itself as follows:
An error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of un definitiveness inherent in its very nature and it must be determined judicially on the facts of each case. There is a real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Again, if a view adopted by the court in the original record is a possible one, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of the record even though another view was possible. Mere error or wrong view is certainly no ground for review though it may be one for appeal,"
The respondent contends that this threshold can only be said to have been met where the error in question is one which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. In the present case, the Defendant/Applicant argues that while the Court ruled in her favour, it failed to grant her the prayers she sought in her further amended plaint in the consolidated file. This argument cannot be sustained by this Court. The error complained of, is not an error that strikes one on mere looking on the record. It is one that requires a tong-drawn process of reasoning to ascertain why the Court did not grant the orders as prayed. Additionally, the error complained of is one that has two opinion/views that can be entertained about it. Accordingly, it does not fit within the definition of an error apparent on the face of the record.
The respondent argues that the discretion to review a judgment, even in the face of a pending appeal, is not automatic, it must be applied judiciously and in a manner that upholds justice to all parties. In the present case granting the orders sought would not advance the ends of justice but would instead occasion g prejudice to the Respondent. The judgment of this Court is already the subject of an active appeal, and to now review the same judgment would in effect produce an entirely new decision thereby rendering the pending appeal otiose. The Respondent would be deprived of the benefit of the appellate process to which it has already resorted, while the Court would, in effect be sitting on its own appeal* In contrast, no prejudice will be suffered by the Applicant if the review is declined, for the matters she seeks to raise can be fully ventilated and determined in the pending appellate proceedings, This Court should therefore refrain from exercising its review jurisdiction in circumstances where doing so would undermine the integrity of the appeal process and offend the principles of finality and orderly administration of justice.
Analysis and Determination
I have considered the application, reply and rival submissions and do find that the 1st issue to be considered is whether a party not appealing can file an application for review under order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010.
To begin with, the relevant provisions for review are section 80 of the civil procedure act cap 21 laws of Kenya and order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules that provide as follows:-
Section 80:-Any person who considers himself aggrieved—
(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or
(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Act,
may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”
Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 provides that:
Any person considering himself aggrieved—
(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or
(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed,
and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.
(2)A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the appellate court the case on which he applies for the review.
It is clear that Order 45 rule 1 (2) allows review of a judgment by the party not appealing where there is a pending appeal and therefore the application is properly before this court. The respondent has not demonstrated that the applicant can present to the appellate court the case on which he applies for review.
This court finds that there is error apparent on the face of the record when the court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit and failed to consider the claim by the appellant who was the plaintiff in ELC No 85 of 2014 that was consolidated with ELC 160 of 2012. It is trite law that a review can be granted when the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court.
In this case, failure to grant a review will leave the applicant in a situation without a remedy whereby the suits were consolidated, the facts are the same, and the court made findings on the facts, dismissed the suit but did not allow the other consolidated suit, therefore leaving the plaintiff applicant herein without a remedy.
The court in its judgment found the defendant to be the legally registered owner of the suit property and therefore there is no need to review the evidence adduced and the findings but to remedy the error of not granting the remedies. The upshot of the above is that the application is allowed thus I do review the judgment delivered electronically on 9th May 2025 and or decree to incorporate an order against Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani (1st defendant) and Joshua Gitiha Nganga (sued as legal representative to the Estate of the late Sybella Wanjiku Gitiha (2nd defendant) jointly and or severally in respect to ELC No. 85 of 2014 consolidated with ELC No.160 of 2012 wherein ELC No. 160 of 2012 is the lead file, to incorporate the prayers contained in the Further Further-Amended Plaint dated 8th November 2024 and filed on 1 8th December 2024 for vacant possession in respect to all those parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/settlement Scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329 within 90 days failure of which an Order of eviction of the defendants jointly and or severally, their children, agents and or servants therefrom be issued.
Moreover an Order for removal of the cautions registered against Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/329.
Lastly that orders of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, children, servants and agents from in any manner whatsoever interfering with the plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of all those parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/settlement scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329 or dealing with the same in any manner detrimental to her interest. Costs of the application to the applicant.
'
Loise Wambui Kahenya has come to this court with an application dated 26th May 2025 seeking orders that this Honorable Court be pleased to review its judgment delivered electronically on 9th May 2025 and or decree to incorporate an order against Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani (1st defendant) and Joshua Gitiha Nganga (sued as legal representative to the Estate of the late Sybella Wanjiku Gitiha (2nd defendant) jointly and or severally in respect to ELC No. 85 of 2014 consolidated with ELC No.160 of 2012 wherein ELC No. 160 of 2012 is the lead file, to incorporate the prayers contained in the Further Further-Amended Plaint dated 8th November 2024 and filed on 18th December 2024 for vacant possession in respect to all those parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/settlement Scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329 and Orders of eviction of the defendants jointly and or severally, their children, agents and or servants therefrom.
Moreover an Order for removal of the cautions registered against Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/329.
Furthermore, that the Officer Commanding Station, Bahati Police station to supervise the eviction of the Defendants from all those parcels of land known as Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Tittle No. Nakuru/Bahati/329.
Lastly that orders of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, children, servants and agents from in any manner whatsoever interfering with the plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of all those parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/settlement scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329 or dealing with the same in any manner detrimental to her interest.
Costs of the application be provided for. The application is based on grounds that there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the judgment and or record.
The application is supported by the affidavit of the said Loise Wambui Kahenya wherein she states that the judgment of this Honorable court was delivered electronically on 9th May 2025. In its judgment, the Honorable court dismissed the plaintiffs'' case (ELC 160 of 2012) in the applicants favor. ELC No. 160 of 2012 being the lead file that had been consolidated with ELC No-85 of 2014 in which applicant was the Plaintiff and Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani and Joshua Gitiha Nganga (sued as the legal representative to the Estate of the late Sybella Wanjiku Gitiha), were the defendants.
The judgment inadvertently omitted the prayers contained in her Further Amended Plaint in ELC No. 85 of 2014. She beseechs this Honorable Court to review its judgment to incorporate the prayers contained in her said Further Amended Plaint in ELC No 85 of 2014 to enable her get the judgment debtors and or their servants and agents evicted. Towards enjoying the fruits of judgment. She further beseechs this Honorable court to order for removal of the cautions registered against Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/329 and to issue orders of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, their children and agents from in any manner whatsoever interfering with plaintiffs'' quiet enjoyment of all those parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bphati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329 dealing with the same in any manner detrimental to her interest.
The applicant laments that unless the inadvertent mistake or error on the face of the judgment or records is rectified she stands to suffer irreparably since the defendants either by themselves, agents and or servants are in occupation of the two parcels of land and she is unable to enjoy the fruits of the judgment without vacant possession provided. The application has been preferred without undue delay and will be prosecuted with due dispatch. The Respondents will not suffer any prejudice since the judgment will incorporate the totality of the two consolidated matters.
The Responce
In the replying affidavit the respondent Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani states that the judgment was delivered on the 9th day of May 2025 wherein the suit was dismissed and each party was to bear own costs. The plaintiff has proffered an appeal in the court of appeal which is pending. The plaintiff’s application for stay pending appeal was disallowed on 25th September 2025. The respondent believes that the applicant’s recourse is to appeal. That the application for review has been filed because the applicant slept on her rights to appeal and did not file his notice of appeal in time.
The respondent states that having rendered the judgment, this honorable court is functus officio and that any further inquiry can only be done in the court of appeal. Ultimately, that the application has been brought to court after inordinate delay in violation of the principles governing application for review.
Rival Submissions
In her submissions, the applicant relies on order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 that underpins the grounds for review of a judgment thus where:-
a. There is discovery of new and important matter or evidence;
b. There is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
c. For any other sufficient reason.
According to the applicant’s counsel, the Court in its judgment delivered on 9th May, 2025 through which it dismissed the Plaintiffs case, inadvertently omitted to incorporate the prayers in ELC No. 85 of 2014, in the Applicant’s further Amended Plaint dated 8th November, 2024. The omission of the reliefs for vacant possession, eviction, removal of cautions, and permanent injunction is a clear error apparent on the face of the record because the Court was obligated to pronounce itself on all issues raised in the consolidated pleadings. The instant application has been brought without delay. The error complained of is self-evident from the pleadings and judgment. Unless corrected, the omission renders the judgment incomplete and incapable of giving the Applicant the fruits of litigation, notwithstanding that the Court found in her favor.
The Respondents remain in unlawful occupation of the parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329, thereby denying the Applicant the benefit of her judgment. Granting the orders sought will not prejudice the Respondents, since they lost their case and have no subsisting proprietary interest in the suit properties.
The applicant relies on the case of National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau [19971 eKLR the Court of Appeal stated as follows:
“A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court. The error or omission must be self-evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established."
The respondent submits on her part that the applicant has not met the threshold for grant of the order for review . That the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court to review its own decisions is a narrow but vital one, grounded in the need to uphold justice and prevent manifest error, The law as it stands, recognizes that while finality of litigation is essential, Justice equally demands that no party should suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record or from a judgment that fails to reflect the true intention Court. The purpose of review therefore, is not to afford an unsatisfied litigant a second bite at the cherry, but to enable the Court to correct an evident mistake, consider newly discovered evidence which could not with due diligence have been produced earlier, or address any other sufficient reason that would make it unjust to let the decision stand. It is a jurisdiction exercised sparingly and with great caution, to balance the twin imperatives of finality in litigation and the ends of justice.
The threshold for grant of the order for review distills from the tenor of the joint provisions of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and order 45 of the Civil procedure rules. Section 80 gives the power of review while rule 45 sets out the threshold for the same. The rule limits review to the following grounds:
a discovery of new and imponent matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made or;
b. on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
c. for any other sufficient reason and whatever the ground there is a requirement that the application has to be made without un reasonable delay.
In her written submissions, the Defendant/Applicant anchors her application on the ground of "error on the face of the. record". It is therefore important, in the first instance, for this Court ascertain what amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record.
The respondent invites the Court to be persuaded by the case of Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya (2019) eKLR which held as follows:
“In Nvamoqo & Nvamoqo v Koqo, discussing what constitutes an error on the face of the record, the court rendered itself as follows:
An error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of un definitiveness inherent in its very nature and it must be determined judicially on the facts of each case. There is a real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Again, if a view adopted by the court in the original record is a possible one, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of the record even though another view was possible. Mere error or wrong view is certainly no ground for review though it may be one for appeal,"
The respondent contends that this threshold can only be said to have been met where the error in question is one which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. In the present case, the Defendant/Applicant argues that while the Court ruled in her favour, it failed to grant her the prayers she sought in her further amended plaint in the consolidated file. This argument cannot be sustained by this Court. The error complained of, is not an error that strikes one on mere looking on the record. It is one that requires a tong-drawn process of reasoning to ascertain why the Court did not grant the orders as prayed. Additionally, the error complained of is one that has two opinion/views that can be entertained about it. Accordingly, it does not fit within the definition of an error apparent on the face of the record.
The respondent argues that the discretion to review a judgment, even in the face of a pending appeal, is not automatic, it must be applied judiciously and in a manner that upholds justice to all parties. In the present case granting the orders sought would not advance the ends of justice but would instead occasion g prejudice to the Respondent. The judgment of this Court is already the subject of an active appeal, and to now review the same judgment would in effect produce an entirely new decision thereby rendering the pending appeal otiose. The Respondent would be deprived of the benefit of the appellate process to which it has already resorted, while the Court would, in effect be sitting on its own appeal* In contrast, no prejudice will be suffered by the Applicant if the review is declined, for the matters she seeks to raise can be fully ventilated and determined in the pending appellate proceedings, This Court should therefore refrain from exercising its review jurisdiction in circumstances where doing so would undermine the integrity of the appeal process and offend the principles of finality and orderly administration of justice.
Analysis and Determination
I have considered the application, reply and rival submissions and do find that the 1st issue to be considered is whether a party not appealing can file an application for review under order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010.
To begin with, the relevant provisions for review are section 80 of the civil procedure act cap 21 laws of Kenya and order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules that provide as follows:-
Section 80:-Any person who considers himself aggrieved—
(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or
(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Act,
may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”
Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 provides that:
Any person considering himself aggrieved—
(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or
(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed,
and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.
(2)A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the appellate court the case on which he applies for the review.
It is clear that Order 45 rule 1 (2) allows review of a judgment by the party not appealing where there is a pending appeal and therefore the application is properly before this court. The respondent has not demonstrated that the applicant can present to the appellate court the case on which he applies for review.
This court finds that there is error apparent on the face of the record when the court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit and failed to consider the claim by the appellant who was the plaintiff in ELC No 85 of 2014 that was consolidated with ELC 160 of 2012. It is trite law that a review can be granted when the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court.
In this case, failure to grant a review will leave the applicant in a situation without a remedy whereby the suits were consolidated, the facts are the same, and the court made findings on the facts, dismissed the suit but did not allow the other consolidated suit, therefore leaving the plaintiff applicant herein without a remedy.
The court in its judgment found the defendant to be the legally registered owner of the suit property and therefore there is no need to review the evidence adduced and the findings but to remedy the error of not granting the remedies. The upshot of the above is that the application is allowed thus I do review the judgment delivered electronically on 9th May 2025 and or decree to incorporate an order against Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani (1st defendant) and Joshua Gitiha Nganga (sued as legal representative to the Estate of the late Sybella Wanjiku Gitiha (2nd defendant) jointly and or severally in respect to ELC No. 85 of 2014 consolidated with ELC No.160 of 2012 wherein ELC No. 160 of 2012 is the lead file, to incorporate the prayers contained in the Further Further-Amended Plaint dated 8th November 2024 and filed on 1 8th December 2024 for vacant possession in respect to all those parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/settlement Scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329 within 90 days failure of which an Order of eviction of the defendants jointly and or severally, their children, agents and or servants therefrom be issued.
Moreover an Order for removal of the cautions registered against Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Title No. Nakuru/Bahati/329.
Lastly that orders of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, children, servants and agents from in any manner whatsoever interfering with the plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of all those parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/settlement scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329 or dealing with the same in any manner detrimental to her interest. Costs of the application to the applicant.
'