Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the excerpt provided· [2021] KEELC 2541 (KLR)

Justino Mukami Wanyama v Kitere Wangia; Michael Sidney Sifuna (suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Justino Mukami Wanyama (Applicant) [2021] KEELC 2541 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
21 July 2021
NMN.A. Matheka
857 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Kakamega corrected its own earlier ruling after finding it had overlooked a crucial document, confirming courts can fix obvious mistakes through review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a review application dated 19th April 2021 brought under Order 45 rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking review of the court's earlier ruling on the ground of an error of law apparent on the face of the record and a possible typing mix-up. The application arose from a ruling on an application dated 15th December 2020 in which the applicant sought substitution of the plaintiff, the decree holder having died. The applicant, through the affidavit of Michael Sidney Sifuna, contended that the court may have missed the limited grant ad litem attached to that application. The court set out the settled principles governing review, citing Kwame Kariuki v Mohamed Hassan Ali on the unavailability of review once an appeal is preferred, Mwihoko Housing Company v Equity Building Society on the self-evident nature of a correctable error, and Rose Kaiza v Angelo Mpanju Kaiza on the need for specificity in review applications. Upon perusal of the court file, the court confirmed the existence of a limited grant ad litem dated 14th December 2020, held that its omission from the earlier ruling constituted an error on the face of the record, and granted the review. Costs were not awarded because the application was undefended. The judgment was delivered at Kakamega on 21st July 2021 by N.A. Matheka, J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ruling should be reviewed for an error apparent on the face of the record

Holding

Review granted; the court found a limited grant ad litem on the file which the earlier ruling overlooked, constituting an error on the face of the record

Reasoning

The court applied Order 45 Rule 1(b), noting the requirements for review. On perusal of the court file it confirmed the existence of a limited grant ad litem dated 14th December 2020 attached to the application for substitution. The court concluded the earlier ruling overlooked this document, amounting to a self-evident error on the face of the record justifying review, and granted the application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Review is unavailable once an appeal has been preferred against the order sought to be reviewed
  • An error or omission capable of correction on review must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument
  • An application for review must be clear and specific on the basis upon which it is made

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The court's earlier ruling is reviewed on account of an error apparent on the face of the record
  2. 2.No orders as to costs, the application having been undefended

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 rules 1 & 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 44 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80

Cases cited (3)

  • Kwame Kariuki & Another Vs. Mohamed Hassan Ali & 4 Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Mwihoko Housing Company Limited vs Equity Building Society
    (2007) 2 KLR 171
  • Rose Kaiza Vs Angelo Mpanju Kaiza
    2009
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 45 rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Justino Mukami Wanyama v Kitere Wangia; Michael Sidney Sifuna (suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Justino Mukami Wanyama (Applicant) [2021] KEELC 2541 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/2541/eng@2021-07-21

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