Coffee Board of Kenya v Kiambu County Council & another
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to remove a deceased man's widow from an appeal, ruling that challenges to a judgment belong in the appeal itself, not review applications.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Court of Appeal may review its own decision substituting a legal representative
The court has inherent jurisdiction under rule 1(2) to review its own decisions, but the applicant failed to demonstrate fraud, bias or other injustice, or abuse of process.
Relying on Manchester Outfitters (SC) and Benjoh Amalgamated, the court affirmed that although no constitutional or statutory provision expressly confers review jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal, inherent jurisdiction exists. It is invoked with circumspection, only in cases of fraud, bias or other injustice, balancing finality against doing justice. The applicant proved none of these.
Whether the applicant's name should be struck out because the deceased was sued in an official capacity as Chairman of Kiambu Coffee Cess
No case for striking out was made; the question whether the estate is liable under the decree is for the bench hearing the appeal, not a review application.
The judgment and decree were passed during the deceased's lifetime and the appeal was preferred before his demise, so the estate requires representation if it wishes to participate. Striking out the applicant's name would effectively summarily allow the appeal for the estate on a motion, which the review forum cannot do; discharging the estate is the business of the appeal bench.
Whether the application was brought too late
The court declined to make a finding, holding that no useful purpose would be served by deciding the timeliness issue.
Having found the application fails on the merits, the court considered a determination on delay unnecessary and expressed no view on whether the motion offended rules 55 and 84 (now 57 and 86) of the Court of Appeal Rules or the substitution timeline.
Legal principles established
#- The Court of Appeal has inherent jurisdiction under rule 1(2) of its Rules to review its own decisions, but only where fraud, bias or other injustice is demonstrated.
- A legal representative substituted into an appeal cannot have her name struck out on a review application where the estate's challenge to the decree properly falls for determination in the appeal itself.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated November 11, 2021 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal (single judge, Martha Koome, JA)
- Civil Appeal No. 232 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction under rule 1(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules to review its own decisions, as recognised in Manchester Outfitters (Supreme Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Coffee Board of Kenya v Kiambu County Council & another", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal (Application) 232 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/1398/eng@2022-12-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.