Richard Akweresa Onditi v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2016] KECA 724 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed it cannot reverse its own decisions, dismissing a litigant's repeated attempts to revive his land dispute with KCB.
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 can set aside its own ruling of 14th February 2013 dismissing a Rule 35 application
- 2.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to reverse or revisit its own decisions on the grounds invoked by the appellant
- 3.Whether a claim for Kes.64,800,000/= for alleged loss of user of land can be entertained in an application under Rule 35 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over its own decisions
The Court has no jurisdiction, under Rule 35 or any other law, to reverse its earlier decisions; a Rule 35 application is confined to correcting clerical, arithmetical or order-harmonization errors
The appellant had already sought, by a Rule 35 application, a reversal of the Court's judgment dismissing his appeal, and that application was dismissed as a disguised appeal. The Court reaffirmed that the limited Rule 35 jurisdiction does not extend to reversing its own decisions or entertaining fresh substantive claims. A litigant dissatisfied with a Court of Appeal decision must pursue other lawful avenues, not repeat applications before the same Court.
Whether a substantive damages claim can be raised in a Rule 35 application
A claim for loss of user of land cannot be entertained in an application under Rule 35
The appellant sought Kes.64,800,000/= for alleged loss of user of his land, alleging the Court had omitted a point of law. The Court held the claim was unfounded and procedurally incompetent within a Rule 35 application, whose function is limited to correcting errors in judgments or orders, not adjudicating new substantive claims for damages.
Legal principles established
#- The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to sit on appeal against, or reverse, its own decisions; Rule 35 permits it to revisit its own judgment or ruling only to correct inadvertent clerical or arithmetical errors or errors in orders to harmonize them with its judgment
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 9th September 2014 is dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kakamega
- H.C.C.C. No. 65 of 1993
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 5(2)(b), 22(1) & (3), 31, 56(2) and 112 of the Court of Appeal Rules as invoked by the applicant; the Court held it had no jurisdiction to reverse its own decisions
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Court's ruling of 14th February 2013
The Court has no jurisdiction to reverse or revisit its own decisions except to correct inadvertent clerical or arithmetical errors under Rule 35
Claim for Kes.64,800,000/= for alleged loss of user of land
The claim cannot be entertained in an application under Rule 35
Costs
No order as to costs, as the bank did not oppose the application
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 made it clear that it has no jurisdiction to sit on appeal against its own decisions.
Rule 35 allows it to revisit its own judgment or ruling only to correct inadvertent clerical or arithmetical errors or to correct any errors in its orders to harmonize them with its judgment.
For these reasons, we find no merit in this application and we accordingly dismiss it. As the bank did not oppose the application, we make no order as to cost.
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.
- Kaingu & another v Ali (Environment and Land Case 180 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 5107 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 5107 (KLR)9 Jul 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Richard Akweresa Onditi v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2016] KECA 724 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Appeal No. 329 of 2009. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/724/eng@2016-03-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.