David Kirimi Charles (Legal Representative of Abraham Kailemia Ikigu - Deceased) v Muntu Kirimania Mungania (Legal Representative of Doris Kinanu Kirimania - Deceased)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed it cannot review its own judgments under civil procedure rules; aggrieved parties must go to the Supreme Court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to review and set aside its own judgment under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 2.Whether the Court of Appeal Rules or the Constitution confer jurisdiction on the Court to review its own decisions
- 3.Whether the application is a disguised appeal and an abuse of process
- 4.Whether stay of execution of the judgment of 4th April 2025 should be granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the Civil Procedure Act review regime applies to the Court of Appeal
It does not; section 80 and Order 45 apply only to the High Court and courts subordinate to it, as 'court' is defined in section 2 of the Act
Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act defines 'court' as the High Court or a subordinate court acting in its civil jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal is neither, so all grounds for review premised on the Act and Rules are irrelevant in the Court of Appeal.
Scope of the Court of Appeal's residual review jurisdiction
The jurisdiction is inherent, residual, exceptional and limited; it exists to address plain and obvious injustice in decisions not appealable to the Supreme Court, balancing finality against the justice principle
Neither the Constitution, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act nor the Court of Appeal Rules provides for review outside the slip rule. Following Benjoh Amalgamated, Standard Chartered and Mukuru Munge, the residual power is exercised with circumspection, only in exceptional cases where injustice outweighs finality, and never as a disguised appeal.
Whether the application was a disguised appeal
Yes; the grounds merely invited the Court to reconsider the merits of the dismissed appeals and could not found review
The alleged error about the applicant being administrator of Charity Nyawira Kailemia's estate was settled by the courts below; the Article 159 complaint and the fraud allegation were matters already litigated and determined, the review application having been dismissed for the applicant's own laches. The application was a barefaced invitation to reconsider the appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules on review apply only to the High Court and courts subordinate thereto, not to the Court of Appeal
- The Court of Appeal's jurisdiction to review its own decisions is inherent, residual, exceptional and exercised with circumspection; a party aggrieved by its merits should appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 163(4)
- Rule 37 of the Court of Appeal Rules (the slip rule) is confined to clerical or arithmetic errors and cannot ground review of the Court's decisions
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review and stay of execution is struck out in its entirety
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal
- Civil Appeal Nos. 154 of 2019 and 86 of 2020 (Consolidated)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent, residual review jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal; application purportedly brought under the Constitution, Court of Appeal Rules, and Order 45 Rule 1, Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 80 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act
- Consolidated with
- Civil Appeal (Application) 86 of 2020
Relief refused
#Review and setting aside of the judgment of the Court dated 4th April 2025
The Court has no jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act or its Rules to review its own decisions; the residual jurisdiction is exceptional and the application was a disguised appeal
Stay of execution of the judgment of 4th April 2025
The application was struck out in its entirety, so the stay sought alongside review fell with it
Costs
Costs of the application to the respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The jurisdiction of this Court to review its decisions is inherent, residual and available only in exceptional and limited cases.
If a party is aggrieved by the merits of a decision of the Court, the remedy is not an application for review, but an appeal to the Supreme Court, subject to satisfying the requirements of Article 163(4) of the Constitution.
Ultimately, we are satisfied that this application is utterly incompetent and the same is hereby struck out in its entirety, with costs to the respondent. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number discrepancy: the heading and neutral citation show 'Civil Appeal (Application) 154 of 2015' while the description of the judgment under review refers to 'Civil Appeal Nos. 154 of 2019'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "David Kirimi Charles (Legal Representative of Abraham Kailemia Ikigu - Deceased) v Muntu Kirimania Mungania (Legal Representative of Doris Kinanu Kirimania - Deceased)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal (Application) 154 of 2015 & 86 of 2020 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1792/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.