Maaa (suing In His Capacity As The Administrator of The Estate of Amaa - Deceased) v Fss
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to review its own final judgment, confirming that review is reserved for exceptional cases showing real injustice, and dismissed the application with costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Scope of the Court of Appeal's residual jurisdiction to review its own decisions
The Court has residual jurisdiction to reopen and rehear a concluded matter where the interests of justice demand, exercisable only in exceptional circumstances where obviating injustice outweighs the principle of finality. The applicant failed to meet that threshold.
Relying on Standard Chartered Financial Services v Manchester Outfitters, Benjoh Amalgamated v Kenya Commercial Bank, and the Supreme Court's endorsement in Menginya Salim Murgani v Kenya Revenue Authority, the Court reiterated that review is exceptional. Kamau James Gitutho confirms finality is not displaced. The applicant's complaints were in substance an appeal against the Court's own judgment, not a proper review.
Effect of execution of the judgment sought to be reviewed
Where the judgment has already been executed and the trial court has carried out the ordered assessment, an application for review would require the Court to act in vain and must fail.
The respondent's unchallenged assertion that the Kadhi's Court had already conducted the assessment of the deceased's estate's means in compliance with the Court's judgment meant the review application was overtaken by events. Granting it would serve no purpose.
Legal principles established
#- The Court of Appeal is clothed with residual jurisdiction to reopen and rehear a concluded matter, but only in exceptional situations where the need to obviate injustice outweighs the principle of finality in litigation.
- An applicant for review of a concluded Court of Appeal decision must demonstrate that the decision occasioned real injustice or miscarriage of justice that has eroded public confidence in the administration of justice; the review jurisdiction is not an avenue for the Court to sit on appeal over its own decisions.
- The existence of the Court's review jurisdiction does not negate the principle of finality in litigation.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 27th April 2022 seeking review and setting aside of prayer (c) of the judgment delivered on 18th February 2022 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya
- Not stated (judgment delivered 18th February 2022)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya and sections 3(2), 3A & B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; rules 1(2) and 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules (residual jurisdiction to review the Court's own decisions)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maaa (suing In His Capacity As The Administrator of The Estate of Amaa - Deceased) v Fss", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 27th April 2022, Court of Appeal at Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/933/eng@2023-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.