John Kinuthia Githinji v Githua Kiarie & 2 others [1996] KECA 128 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed it cannot review its own completed judgments, striking out an application for lacking jurisdiction.
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 Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to review its own completed judgment
- 2.Whether the application under rules 1(3), 31 and 5(2)(b) of the Court's Rules and section 3(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act was competent
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court of Appeal can review its own completed judgment
It cannot; the application for review was incompetent and was struck out for want of jurisdiction.
The Court reasoned that as a creature of statute it enjoys only such jurisdiction as is conferred on it by statute. The power to review a completed judgment was never conferred on it by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act or the Court's Rules, and the Court possesses no inherent jurisdiction to fill the gap. An application purportedly founded on rules 1(3), 31 and 5(2)(b) of the Rules and section 3(2) of the Act therefore disclosed no jurisdictional basis and had to be struck out, with costs to the respondents.
Legal principles established
#- The Court of Appeal, being a creation of statute, has only such jurisdiction as is conferred on it by statute, and has no power, statutory or inherent, to review its own completed judgment.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 19th August 1996 seeking review of the judgment delivered on 12th April 1995 was struck out for want of jurisdiction
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- P. & A. Cause No. 583 of 1981
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules of the Court of Appeal (rules 1(3), 31 and 5(2)(b)) and section 3(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, as invoked by the applicant; the Court held it had no statutory power to review its own completed judgment
Relief refused
#Review of the Court's judgment of 12th April 1995 in Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1988
The Court is a creature of statute and has no power, statutory or inherent, to review its completed judgment
Costs
The costs of this application are awarded 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.
This Court being a creation of statute enjoys only such jurisdiction as is conferred on it by statute.
The power to review its completed judgment was not given to the court. Neither has it any inherent jurisdiction.
This application is incompetent and is ordered struck out for want of jurisdiction. The costs of this application are awarded to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The coram lists Bosire as 'Ag, J.A.' (acting Judge of Appeal) while the signature block styles him 'JUDGE OF APPEAL'; the ruling is also headed 'RULING OF THE COURT' though it disposes of an application for review rather than the appeal itself.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Kinuthia Githinji v Githua Kiarie & 2 others [1996] KECA 128 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1996). Civil Appeal (Application) No. 99 of 1988. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1996/128/eng@1996-10-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.