1. Vide the Notice of Motion application dated 19/09/2025, the Applicants are seeking interalia, that this Court be pleased to review the order issued on 11/09/2025 and exclude the 1st Applicants title No’s Mbeti/Gachuriri/428 and 429 from the title to be cancelled by the Land Registrar.
2. The application is based on grounds on the face of the application supported by the affidavit of Abobo Euphemiah from the firm of Kiruki and Kayika Advocates on record for the Applicants. He deposed that on 11/09/2025, this Court issued an order to the effect that the decree arising from the Judgment delivered on 05/04/2018 is amended to restrict its application to the parcels of land owned by the Defendants, that is Mbeti/Gachuriri/456, 446, 426, 427, 428, 429, 435, 438, 439, 443, 462, 440 and 445.
3. He averred that this Court further directed the Land Registrar to amend entry no. 10 in the proprietorship section of the register for Mbeti/Gachuriri/172 to reflect the position that the cancellation of titles pursuant to the decree of the Court only applies to Mbeti/Gachuriri/456, 446, 427, 428, 429, 435, 438, 439, 443, 462, 440 and 445. He contended that there is an apparent error on the face of the record as the Court has erroneously listed the 1st Applicant’s title No’s. Mbeti/Gachuriri/428 and 429 as part of the parcels owned by the Defendants.
4. He averred that the 1st Applicant is apprehensive that if the Order of this Court is not reviewed, then it will be prejudiced since its title No’s 428 and 429 will be cancelled by the Land Registrar from the register of land parcel 172, contrary to the intentions of the Court. He contended that it would be in the interest of justice that the Order issued by this Court on 11/09/2025 be reviewed to exclude the 1st Applicant’s title No. 428 and 429 from the titles to be cancelled by the Land Registrar. He attached to the supporting affidavit the Ruling delivered on 11/09/2025 and the title to parcels 428 and 429.
5. The 7th Plaintiff Njue Njagi, in opposition to the application and on behalf of the other Plaintiffs filed a replying affidavit dated 29/09/2025 and deposed that the application is was untenable, misguided, frivolous, vexatious, and a clear abuse of the court process. He stated that the court had already delivered its judgment on 05/04/2018, which conclusively determined the issues therein, rendering the court functus officio and without jurisdiction to reopen or review its own decision. He averred that the Applicants were strangers to the suit, having never sought or obtained joinder to the suit, and therefore lacked locus standi to move the court or seek relief.
6. He averred that the Ruling of 11/09/2025 was irregular, improper, invalid, and inexecutable, as it attempted to review and overturn this Court’s Judgment of 05/04/2018 through a backdoor application by non-parties. He further stated that the ruling failed to uphold the doctrines of res judicata and functus officio, and sanctioned an inordinate delay of over six years after the delivery of the original Judgment, violating the principle of finality. He averred, that the Ruling of 11/09/2025 was misguided because the court misunderstood the capacity in which the Defendants had been sued. He stated that while the court appeared to treat the Defendants as proprietors of certain land parcels, in reality they had been sued as leaders of the Gekara Group Ranch.
7. He further stated that the Defendants had illegally taken over the mother clan land parcel Mbeti/Gachuriri/172 as self-alleged trustees, subdivided it, and sold the resultant parcels to non-clan members. He averred that the court’s Ruling wrongly limited the judgment to the Defendants alone, whereas the judgment of 05/04/2018 had been categorical that the registration of Gekara Group Ranch as proprietor of Mbeti/Gachuriri/172 was fraudulent and that all subdivisions and transfers of the suit property to the Defendants were null and void. He emphasized that the Applicants’ parcels were part of those subdivisions and could not be exempted from the effect of the judgment. He noted that the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 210 of 2019 had categorically upheld the trial court’s finding that the registration of Gekara Group Ranch was fraudulent, and that all subdivisions emanating from the mother title must revert back. He stressed that it was impractical and legally impossible for the Applicants to seek special treatment or exemption for their parcels.
8. The 7th Plaintiff went on to argue that the ruling of 11/09/2025 contradicted itself by acknowledging the impossibility of sparing some of the parcels of land in the application and implementation of the Judgment of 05/04/2018 yet proceeded to order reinstatement of some, which had been specifically listed in the 2018 judgment as defective subdivisions. He argued that reinstating them was inconsistent with both the trial court’s decree and the Court of Appeal’s binding decision. The 7th Plaintiff averred that the Applicants had already attempted to challenge the Court of Appeal judgment through Civil Application No. E001 of 2025 on the same grounds, which was application was withdrawn, and that returning to the Environment and Land Court amounted to forum shopping. He averred that the Plaintiffs had since filed a Notice of Appeal against the ruling of 11/09/2025, and urged that the matter be left for the appellate court to settle conclusively.
9. He annexed to the Replying Affidavit a copy of the Order in Civil Application no. E001 of 2025 and a copy of the Notice of Appeal.
10. When the application came up for directions, the parties agreed to canvass it by way of written submissions. The Applicants filed submissions dated 30/10/2025 through the firm of Kiruki and Kayika Company Advocates.
11. They submitted that the jurisdiction to review decrees and orders of the Court is conferred by section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules which provide the grounds for review which include the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the applicants knowledge or could not be produced at the time the Order was made; on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or for any other sufficient reasons. They proffered the case of Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya [2019] eKLR and National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau [1997] eKLR, where the Court elaborated on the grounds for review.
12. They further submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record as the Court in its Order of 11/09/2025 intended to limit cancellation to parcels owned by the Defendants. That however, through inadvertence, the Court’s Order included parcels 428 and 429 which belong to the 1st Applicant and therefore the inclusion of the parcels was an apparent factual error as the Court’s intention was never to affect the Applicant’s proprietary interests. They averred that they had satisfied the threshold for review and urged the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to prevent injustice and to ensure that their proprietary rights are not unjustly interfered with.
13. The Plaintiffs filed submissions dated 04/12/2025 through the firm of Mutuma Gichuru and Associates. They submitted that this Court became functus officio after it delivered its Judgment on 05/04/2018 and therefore they cannot act in contravention of that doctrine and the principle of judicial finality. They submitted that the law only allows for the correction of a judgment but not its merits as was held by the Court of Appeal in Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda (Suing on his own behalf and on behalf of 996 former employees of Telkom Kenya Limited) [2014] eKLR.
14. They averred that the Applicants are total strangers to the instant suit having not been parties to the original proceedings before this Court and having not sought to be joined as parties to date. They maintained that even despite this Court in its ruling of 11/09/2025 suo moto framing the issue for joinder as an issue for determination, the Court never joined the Applicants as parties to the suit, hence leaving them out as non-parties and strangers to this suit. They further contended that the application fails to meet the statutory threshold for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, since the alleged error apparent is not clerical or factual mistake as alleged by the Applicants but a disguised appeal. They urged that the application be dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiffs.
15. The Plaintiff’s filed further submissions dated 05/12/2025 through the firm of C.K Njagi and Company Advocates and submitted that the application was inherently defective and misplaced. They maintained that the application did not meet the threshold for review under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
16. Having considered the application, the responses filed thereto and the partys’ submissions, the Court finds that the issue for determination is whether the Court should review the Order issued on 11/09/2025 and exclude the 1st Applicants title No’s Mbeti/Gachuriri/428 and 429 from the title to be cancelled by the Land Registrar.
17. The power of this Court to review its decisions is given by section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. For an Applicant to succeed, it must be demonstrated that there exists discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge; or that there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or that there exists any other sufficient reason.
18. In this case, the record shows that in its ruling of 11/09/2025, the Court expressly joined the Applicants as interested parties to the suit upon their application. It is also clear that the Applicants were not parties to the original proceedings leading to the judgment of 05/04/2018, which expressly limited its effect to the 17 Defendants who had been sued, and not to purchasers of subdivisions of Mbeti/Gachuriri/172 who had not been joined in the suit. The 1st Applicants are the registered proprietors of parcels 428 and 429 and it is therefore clear that the Court did not intend in its Ruling of 11/09/2025 to include those parcels in the cancellation.
19. The Court accordingly finds that there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, and that the application has merit.
20. The final orders of the Court in the ruling dated 11/09/2025 were that “The Land Registrar is directed to amend entry no. 10 in the proprietorship section of the register for parcel 172 to reflect the position that the cancellation of titles pursuant to the decree of the Court only applies to parcels 456, 446, 426, 427, 428, 429, 435, 438, 439, 443, 462, 440 and 445.”
21. In light of the foregoing, this Court now directs that parcels Mbeti/Gachuriri/428 and 429, being registered in the name of the 1st Applicant, are hereby excluded from cancellation, and the Land Registrar shall amend entry no. 10 in the proprietorship section of the register for parcel 172 to reflect that cancellation pursuant to the decree of the Court applies only to parcels Mbeti/Gachuriri/456, 446, 426, 427, 435, 438, 439, 443, 462, 440 and 445.
DATED, DELIVERED and SIGNED this 26th day of February, 2026.
In the presence of;
1. M/S Abobo for Defendant/Applicant.
2. C.K Njagi for plaintiff/Respondent.
3. Diana Kemboi C/A
| Page 8 of 7 |