Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2020] KEELC 1210 (KLR)

Lakeview Investments Limited v John Paul Odero (sued as the Chairman, Nairobi Kenya Secondary Schools Heads Association) (Environment & Land Case 280 of 2017) [2020] KEELC 1210 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 September 2020
2,422 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed that even someone found in contempt can still ask the same court to review that ruling.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Machakos (O.A. Angote J, 25 September 2020) determines the Defendant's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 23rd July 2020. The Defendant sought to strike out the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 14th July 2020, which sought review of the court's ruling of 15th May 2020 finding the Plaintiff's director, Joseph Oduor Okwaro, in contempt of orders of 25th January 2019. The Defendant argued three grounds: that the Plaintiff, as an undischargeed contemnor, lacked audience before the court until the contempt was purged or the director sentenced; that the application was barred by res judicata and would amount to the court sitting in appeal over its own decision; and that the application was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. Counsel relied on Mukisa Biscuit, Ramesh Popatlal Shah and Econet Wireless, while the Plaintiff relied on Rose Detho and Joseph Schilling to show that hearing a contemnor is discretionary. The court held that Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act read with Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules expressly allows an aggrieved party to seek review of a ruling, and contains no exclusion for contempt rulings; the court therefore had a constitutional and statutory duty to hear the Plaintiff. A review application is neither res judicata of the ruling reviewed nor an appeal from the court's own decision; any such argument should be raised in opposition to the application. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Right of audience of an undischargeed contemnor

Holding

The preliminary objection on audience fails; the court is obliged to hear the applicant on a properly filed review application.

Reasoning

Section 80 and Order 45 permit an aggrieved party to seek review of a ruling, and nothing in those provisions excludes contempt rulings. Since the law allows the application, the court has a constitutional and statutory duty to hear the applicant. The discretion recognised in Rose Detho favours granting an opportunity to be heard.

p. 3
02

Res judicata and functus officio

Holding

A review application is not res judicata of the ruling sought to be reviewed, nor does hearing it amount to the court sitting on appeal over its own decision.

Reasoning

The Defendant argued the court had already rejected the grounds on 15th May 2020 and became functus officio. The court held that review is a statutorily recognised route to challenge a ruling, and any argument that the application is in substance an appeal should be raised in opposition to the application itself, not by preliminary objection.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party aggrieved by a contempt ruling may challenge it by way of review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules; being an undischargeed contemnor does not, as a preliminary point of law, bar audience on such an application.
  • Whether an application for review meets the requirements of Order 45 can only be determined after hearing both parties.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Defendant's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 23rd July, 2020 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the Preliminary Objection awarded to the Plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rules 1(1) and 2(1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs. West End Distributors Ltd
    [1969] EA 696
  • Ramesh Popatlal Shah & 2 Others versus National Industrial Credit Bank Limited
    [2005] eKLR
  • Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd vs. Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & another
    [2005] eKLR
  • Rose Detho vs. Ratilal Automobiles Ltd & 6 other
    [2007] eKLR
  • Joseph Schilling and 2 others vs. Stardust Investments Ltd & Another
    Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1997
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction; review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lakeview Investments Limited v John Paul Odero (sued as the Chairman, Nairobi Kenya Secondary Schools Heads Association) (Environment & Land Case 280 of 2017) [2020] KEELC 1210 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1210/eng@2020-09-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.