Sanitam Services (E.A.) Limited v Rentokil (K) Limited & another [2018] KECA 99 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that judges cannot use review applications to change their own earlier orders—only appeals can do that.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Scope of review jurisdiction under Section 80 Civil Procedure Act and Order 45
Review is not a vehicle for altering substantive orders; a party must bring itself within the statutory grounds and the court may not depart from the original orders
The Court reiterated that review is available on discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, applied without unreasonable delay. Its purpose is not to change or alter the original judgment. The Judge's discovery of practical difficulties in executing his own orders did not fit any statutory ground, and no material was shown to justify the review, so the alteration of the 18th May 2017 orders was an erroneous exercise of discretion.
Whether the Judge sat on appeal against his own orders
By substantially altering the orders of 18th May 2017 on review, the Judge usurped an appellate function the law does not allow
Relying on National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau and the Supreme Court's decision in Fredrick Otieno Outa, the Court held that a wrong conclusion of law is a ground for appeal, not review, and that the slip rule confers no jurisdiction to sit on appeal over one's own judgment or to review it so as to substantially alter it. Ruling No. 2 took away rights granted to the appellant in the earlier ruling, thus exceeding the review jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- The slip rule and review jurisdiction do not permit a court to sit on appeal over its own judgment or to substantially alter its earlier orders
- Review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 is confined to discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, and cannot be used to change the judgment as originally decreed
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is allowed
- 2.The orders of the High Court made on 3rd October, 2017 are set aside
- 3.The application for review dated 6th June, 2017 is dismissed
- 4.The appellant is awarded the costs of the appeal and the costs below, payable by the 1st respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Commercial & Admiralty Court)
- H. C. C. No. 58 of 1999
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal against orders of the High Court under the Civil Procedure Act; review governed by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sanitam Services (E.A.) Limited v Rentokil (K) Limited & another [2018] KECA 99 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Appeal 379 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/99/eng@2018-11-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.