Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Application 16 of 2012· [2014] KECA 872 (KLR)

Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd

Court of Appeal
20 June 2014
13,561 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~54 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to reopen a 1998 judgment, confirming that private disputes cannot reach the Supreme Court and old decisions stay closed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Benjoh Amalgamated Limited and Muiri Coffee Estate Limited applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal's judgment of 10th March 1998 in Civil Appeal No. 276 of 1997, or in the alternative for the Court to recall, review and set aside that judgment. The underlying dispute concerned a consent order recorded before Githinji J in 1992 in a loan dispute with Kenya Commercial Bank; the High Court set the consent aside for want of records, the Court of Appeal reversed, and the applicants later lost related litigation on res judicata grounds. The Court (G.B.M. Kariuki, D.K. Musinga and W. Ouko, JJA) dismissed the application with costs. On the first prayer, it held that the validity of a consent order is a private matter between the parties, commonplace in litigation, and does not transcend the parties' interests or bear on public interest, so no certificate could issue under Article 163(4)(b); further, following the Supreme Court's decision in Samuel Macharia, pre-2010 Court of Appeal decisions cannot be reopened by appeal to the Supreme Court. On the second prayer, the Court undertook an extensive survey of Kenyan, English, Singaporean, Australian and American authority on review jurisdiction, identifying a tension between the finality principle and the justice principle. It held that the Court of Appeal, no longer the final court, possesses a residual jurisdiction to review its decisions where no appeal lies, to correct errors occasioning real injustice, but only cautiously. It declined to exercise that jurisdiction because the applicants delayed fourteen years, third-party rights had vested in the suit properties, and the decision predated the 2010 Constitution.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the intended appeal raised a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b)

Holding

It did not; the substratum was the validity of a consent order, a matter affecting only the parties and commonplace in litigation.

Reasoning

The Court applied the Steyn v Gnecchi-Ruscone threshold that a matter of general public importance must transcend the parties' interests and impact society or public interest. The validity of a consent order in a private loan dispute affects only the litigating parties, is not unique, and is commonplace in litigation, so certification was refused.

p. 10
02

Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to review its own decisions

Holding

The Court has only appellate jurisdiction plus inherent power under rule 1(2); apart from the slip rule in rule 35 there is no apparent jurisdiction to review, but as a non-final court it retains a residual jurisdiction to review where no appeal lies, exercised cautiously.

Reasoning

Tracing jurisdiction from Article 164(3), the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the Court of Appeal Rules, the Court found no statutory review power comparable to section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act. Pre-2010 case law denied review jurisdiction, but comparative jurisprudence shows a final court has residual jurisdiction in cases of fraud, bias or injustice; as the Court is no longer the final court, a residual jurisdiction exists but must be exercised with circumspection.

03

Whether the residual jurisdiction should be exercised on the facts

Holding

No. The applicants came 14 years late, third-party rights had vested in the suit properties, and the decision predated the 2010 Constitution.

Reasoning

The length of delay and intervening events bear on the balance of justice. The Court would be reluctant to invoke residual review where there is laches or where innocent third parties have acquired vested rights. The titles had been transferred to an untainted third party and charged, and the judgment sought to be reviewed was delivered before the 2010 Constitution.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A matter qualifies for certification under Article 163(4)(b) only where the issue transcends the interests of the parties and impacts on society or bears on public interest.
  • The Court of Appeal, not being the final court, has residual jurisdiction to review its own decisions where no appeal lies, to correct errors occasioning real injustice, but only cautiously.
  • The Court will not entertain review of decisions made before the 2010 Constitution, nor where there is laches or vested third-party rights.
  • Apart from the slip rule in rule 35 of the Court of Appeal Rules, there is no apparent statutory jurisdiction for the Court of Appeal to review its own orders or judgments.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dismissed with costs to the respondent
  2. 2.Certificate under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution declined
On appeal from
Court of Appeal
Civil Appeal No. 276 of 1997
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (certification of matters of general public importance) and the Court of Appeal's residual/inherent jurisdiction under rule 1(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd", Case Analysis (2014). Civil Application 16 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2014/872/eng@2014-06-20

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