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 judgment· [2021] KEELC 1619 (KLR)

Teresia Njeri Mwangi & another v Roseline Kamunyu & 2 others [2021] KEELC 1619 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 October 2021
2,590 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 refused to correct a land judgment because the same issues were already on appeal, so parties must raise such problems in the appeal instead.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Defendants/Applicants moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 23rd February 2021 seeking review and correction of the judgment and decree of 12th September 2019, so that the suit property would be described as Title No. Ruiru West Block 1/768 instead of Ruiru Kiu Block 1/768, and so that the decree would indicate ownership by the 3rd Defendant, Phylis Njoki Kariuki, who had been unable to procure title documents. They contended the misdescription was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Plaintiffs/Respondents opposed through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Francis Maina, arguing that the Defendants' pleadings and Counter Claim had sought Ruiru Kiu Block 1/768, that parties are bound by their pleadings, and that since the Plaintiffs had already filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal raising the very issues sought to be reviewed, the application was an abuse of process. The court framed one issue: whether the Applicants were entitled to the orders sought. It acknowledged the statutory power to correct clerical mistakes under Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and to review under Section 80 and Order 45, citing National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau and Muyodi v ICDC on error apparent on the face of the record. However, holding that the issues were already before the Court of Appeal and that a review would prejudice that appeal, the court found it had no jurisdiction to entertain them and dismissed the application entirely with costs to the Plaintiffs/Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court can review its judgment and decree where an appeal on the same issues is pending before the Court of Appeal

Holding

The review could not be entertained because the issues were before the Court of Appeal, and under Order 45 rule 2 a review is barred where the ground of appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant

Reasoning

The court noted that although the Applicants were not the ones who filed the appeal, the Memorandum of Appeal showed the issues sought to be reviewed were part of that appeal. Reviewing the judgment would alter it and prejudice the pending appeal. Order 45(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules bars a review where the ground is common to the applicant and the appellant, so the application was dismissed entirely with costs.

p. 3
02

Whether the alleged misdescription of the suit property was a clerical error or a mistake apparent on the face of the record

Holding

The court found the alleged errors stemmed from the Applicants' own pleadings rather than being a clerical error by the court

Reasoning

The court observed that in their Counter Claim the Defendants had sought relief in respect of Ruiru Kiu Block 1/768 rather than Ruiru West Block 1/768, and had sought registration of all Defendants rather than the 3rd Defendant alone. The issues therefore arose from the pleadings, not from a clerical mistake in the judgment, and would ordinarily be matters for the appellate court.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A court has no jurisdiction to review its judgment on issues that are already the subject of an appeal before the Court of Appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 23rd February 2021 is dismissed entirely
  2. 2.Costs to the Plaintiffs/Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 99
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 100
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 2

Cases cited (4)

  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd Vs Ndungu Njau
  • Muyodi Vs Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation & Another
    [2006] 1 EA 243
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo -vs- Kogo
    (2001) EA 174
  • Chandrakhant Joshibhai Patel Vs R
    [2004] TLR, 218
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 80, 99 and 100 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, "Teresia Njeri Mwangi & another v Roseline Kamunyu & 2 others [2021] KEELC 1619 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1619/eng@2021-10-08

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