Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Application No. Nai. 283 of 1996 (107/96UR)· [1997] KECA 327 (KLR)

Kenneth Imbahale Akibaya v Nairobi City Council & another [1997] KECA 327 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
1 October 1997
Philip Kiptoo TunoiP. K. TunoiALA. A. LakhaSBS. E. O. Bosire
181 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed it cannot review its own judgments, so losing parties must seek other remedies rather than ask the same court to reconsider.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Tunoi, Lakha, JJ.A. and Bosire, Ag. J.A.) determined a civil application in which the applicant, Kenneth Imbahale Akibaya, sought what he himself described as a review of two earlier decisions of the same Court in Civil Appeals No. 126 of 1991 and 181 of 1993, arising from litigation against Nairobi City Council and Vallabhdas Karsandas Raniga. The Court held that it is a creature of statute and has only such jurisdiction as is conferred upon it by law, and that it has no jurisdiction to sit on review of its own judgments. On that basis the application failed and was dismissed with costs. The ruling is significant as an early and categorical statement that the Court of Appeal possesses no power to review its own decisions; a party aggrieved by a Court of Appeal judgment must pursue other avenues, such as an appeal to the Supreme Court where one exists, rather than asking the same Court to revisit its own ruling. The underlying matter originated from a ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Mango) dated 10th March 1992 in H.C.C.C. No. Misc. 359 of 1984, but the Court did not disturb any decision below in this ruling; the sole issue was its own lack of jurisdiction to review itself.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court of Appeal can review its own judgments

Holding

It cannot; the Court has no jurisdiction to sit on review of its own judgments, and an application seeking such review must fail.

Reasoning

The Court characterised the application as one for review of two of its own earlier decisions. Because the Court of Appeal is a creature of statute, it possesses only the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law, and no such power of review over its own judgments exists. Lacking jurisdiction, the application could not succeed and was dismissed with costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court of Appeal has no inherent or statutory jurisdiction to review its own judgments; it is a creature of statute exercising only jurisdiction conferred by law.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for review is dismissed with costs.
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.C.C. No. Misc. 359 of 1984
Jurisdiction invoked
The Court of Appeal is a creature of statute with only such jurisdiction as is conferred upon it by law; it has no jurisdiction to review its own judgments.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenneth Imbahale Akibaya v Nairobi City Council & another [1997] KECA 327 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1997). Civil Application No. Nai. 283 of 1996 (107/96UR). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1997/327/eng@1997-10-01

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