Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 23rd October 2020 (ruling of 19th February 2020 in suit with judgment dated 21st February 2019)· [2021] KEELC 2824 (KLR)

Wangari Wanjao v County Government of Uasin Gishu [2021] KEELC 2824 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 June 2021
1,865 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court refused to review a conditional stay order, confirming that parties unhappy with a judge's discretion must appeal, not seek review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The defendant, a county government, moved the court by notice of motion dated 23rd October 2020 seeking reinstatement of stay of execution orders issued on 19th February 2020, enlargement of time, and vacation of the condition requiring it to deposit Kshs.3,000,000.00 in a joint interest-earning account as security for due performance of the decree issued on 28th February 2019, arising from a judgment dated 21st February 2019. The applicant argued that requiring a county government to deposit security contravened Order 42 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which exempts government from furnishing security, and that the condition was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45. The plaintiff/respondent opposed through the replying affidavit of Wangari Wanjao. The court framed one issue: whether the defendant had made a reasonable case for review of the 19th February 2020 order. Relying on authorities including NTSA v Ongoya and Eusophia Nyaga Kanyifa, the court held that security for due performance is discretionary. Citing Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal ex parte Apollo Mboya and Christopher Musyoka Musau, it held that review lies only for patent, self-evident error and cannot be used to challenge a discretionary decision perceived to be legally wrong; the applicant should pursue an appeal. The court declared itself functus officio and dismissed the application with costs on 23rd June 2021, delivered virtually.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the requirement that a county government deposit security for due performance contravenes Order 42 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review

Holding

No. The court's discretion to grant a conditional stay is lawful and the alleged misapprehension of law is not a ground for review; review lies only for patent error and cannot be used to reopen an erroneous discretionary decision.

Reasoning

Order 45 Rule 1 confines review to discovery of new matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, applied for without unreasonable delay. An error apparent must be self-evident without elaborate argument. Disagreement with a discretionary conditional stay, or a claim that the court misapplied Order 42 Rule 8, is an invitation to sit on appeal over its own decision, which the court cannot do once functus officio; the applicant must appeal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party aggrieved by the exercise of a court's discretion in issuing a conditional order of stay cannot obtain correction by review; the remedy is an appeal, and a court that has delivered its ruling is functus officio.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The defendant/applicant's notice of motion dated 23rd October 2020 is dismissed with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wangari Wanjao v County Government of Uasin Gishu [2021] KEELC 2824 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of Motion dated 23rd October 2020 (ruling of 19th February 2020 in suit with judgment dated 21st February 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/2824/eng@2021-06-23

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