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 as provided· [2021] KEELC 2840 (KLR)

John Michael Wanjao v County Government of Uasin Gishu [2021] KEELC 2840 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 June 2021
1,866 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

#

A Kenyan court ruled that a county government cannot use review to escape a Kshs.3 million security condition for staying execution — the appeal route is the proper remedy.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The defendant/applicant, a county government, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 23rd October 2020 seeking reinstatement of stay of execution orders granted on 19th February 2020, enlargement of time, and review or vacation of the condition in that ruling 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, pending an appeal. The plaintiff/respondent opposed through a replying affidavit sworn by John Michael Wanjao. The sole issue was whether the defendant had made out a reasonable case for review. The applicant argued that conditioning stay on a government entity depositing security contravened Order 42 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, citing Mombasa County Government v Pauline Wanjiru Kageni and the Eusophia Nyaga Kanyifa decision, and framed the condition as an error apparent on the face of the record under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1(b). Relying on Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex Parte Apollo Mboya, the court held that an error apparent must be self-evident without elaborate reasoning; a mere erroneous decision or a different view of law is not reviewable. Following Christopher Musyoka Musau v N.P.G. Warren, the court warned that review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise, as courts become functus officio. The applicant's real grievance was with the exercise of discretion, and the proper remedy was an appeal. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether requiring a county government to deposit security as a condition for stay is an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review

Holding

No. The applicant is essentially aggrieved by the exercise of the court's discretion in issuing a conditional stay; such a grievance does not fall within the purview of review and should be pursued on appeal

Reasoning

The court reviewed Order 45 Rule 1(b) grounds for review and authorities on 'error apparent on the face of the record'. It distinguished between a mere erroneous decision and a patent error. The applicant's complaint was that the court misapplied Order 42 Rule 8 in requiring security from a government entity - a dispute over the correctness of a legal view, not a self-evident error. Allowing review on grounds of alleged legal error would set a dangerous precedent, since review is not appellate power and the court had become functus officio on the matter.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Review under Order 45 does not lie to correct an alleged error of law or a grievance about the exercise of discretion; the proper remedy is an appeal
  • An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument or reasoning to detect

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, "John Michael Wanjao v County Government of Uasin Gishu [2021] KEELC 2840 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/2840/eng@2021-06-23

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