Pasisco Eastern Africa Limited v Ecobank Kenya Limited

The Court applied the settled principle that an appellate court is slow to interfere with a trial judge's exercise of discretion, and may do so only where the judge misdirected himself in law, misapprehended the facts, took into account irrelevant considerations, failed to take relevant ones into account, or where the decision is plainly wrong. The appellant did not allege discovery of new or important matter, a mistake apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient cause; it premised the review application solely on non-service of the notice to show cause, which the trial court found had been served at the address indicated in the appellant's pleadings. No error of principle or plainly wrong decision was identified in the ruling below.

The Court restated the classic Mbogo vs. Shah threshold as the governing standard for appellate intervention in discretionary decisions, emphasising that as an appellate court it is slow to interfere with a trial judge's exercise of discretion. Applying that threshold to the refusal to review the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution, the Court found no misdirection in law, misapprehension of fact, irrelevant consideration, omitted relevant consideration, nor a plainly wrong decision, and therefore declined to disturb the ruling below.

Relying on its prior decision in Peter Keen Kiboi vs. Terence Naibei Lubusi, the Court reaffirmed that the grounds for review are those provided under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and that an applicant must clearly state the specific ground relied upon. The appellant neither alleged discovery of new or important matter, nor a mistake apparent on the face of the record, nor sufficient cause warranting review; its application rested exclusively on alleged non-service of the notice to show cause, a contention the trial court rejected on the facts, having found service at the address indicated in the pleadings.