Godfrey Karume v Kilimo Shutu & 6 others [2020] KECA 744 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal confirmed it cannot reopen its own judgments just because a party disagrees with them—unless very narrow exceptions apply.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Court of Appeal is empowered to review its own judgments
The Court has no general power of review; review of its judgments lies only under rule 35 (clerical or arithmetical mistakes, the Slip Rule) and rule 57(1), or in the narrow circumstances recognised by the Supreme Court in Manchester Outfitters, Jasbir Singh Rai and Fredrick Otieno Outa.
Article 164(3) of the Constitution and section 3 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act confine the Court to hearing and determining appeals. Rule 35 permits correction only of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips so as to give effect to the Court's intention; rule 57(1) is confined to rescinding or varying single-judge orders in specified situations. The Supreme Court has extended review to circumstances meeting the ends of justice: conflicting past decisions, per incuriam rulings, fraud, nullity, reliance on repealed law or concealed statutory provisions. The applicant's complaint — that the Court computed adverse possession from the allotment date rather than the registration date due to an incomplete record — fits none of these.
Whether the alleged error in computing adverse possession from 1st February 1986 justified review
No. The complaint amounted to an asserted error of judgment on the evidence and record, not a clerical slip or any recognised ground for review, and the Court declined to revisit the substantive adverse-possession question.
The applicant contended the judgment wrongly computed time for adverse possession from the allotment letter date rather than the 2004 registration date, allegedly due to an incomplete record. The Court found the perceived mistake was not a clerical or arithmetical error under rule 35, and none of the Manchester Outfitters criteria (fraud, nullity, repealed law, etc.) was demonstrated. Having declined review, the Court expressly declined to address whether the adverse possession determination was correct.
Legal principles established
#- The Court of Appeal's jurisdiction is limited to hearing and determining appeals; review of its own judgments is confined to the Slip Rule (rule 35) and rule 57(1), save in the exceptional circumstances recognised by the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court's Manchester Outfitters criteria — conflicting past decisions, per incuriam decisions, fraud or deceit, nullity, incompetence, reliance on repealed law or concealed statutory provisions — are the recognised grounds on which a court may depart from or set aside its own decision; an alleged error of fact or computation on an incomplete record does not qualify.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 18th April 2017 was dismissed with costs to the respondents
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal (Nairobi)
- Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 164(3) of the Constitution; sections 3(2), 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; rules 1(2) and 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Godfrey Karume v Kilimo Shutu & 6 others [2020] KECA 744 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Application No. 18 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/744/eng@2020-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.