Young Chul Choi v Kenya Railways Corporation [2022] KEELC 428 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a defendant's attempt to overturn an injunction through review, confirming that unhappy parties must appeal, not re-litigate.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court has jurisdiction to review its own ruling of 11th November 2021 granting a temporary injunction
The court lacked jurisdiction to review its own decision on the same issue; the application amounted to sitting on appeal on its own decision disguised as review.
The court had already considered the allegations regarding the DCI and EACC occupation/investigations in the earlier ruling. Re-agitating the same issues via a review application would amount to an appeal on its own decision, which the judicial policy in Bellevue Development Company Ltd v Francis Gikonyo & 7 others disallows. The aggrieved party must pursue an appeal, not a disguised review.
Whether there was discovery of new and important evidence or an error/mistake warranting review
No new and important evidence was discovered, and no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record was identified; a wrong conclusion of law is a ground for appeal, not review.
The defendant's complaint was that the court took an erroneous position despite the affidavit evidence placed before it. Relying on National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau, misconstruing a statute or proceeding on an incorrect exposition of the law cannot be a ground for review; matters fully canvassed and consciously decided cannot be reviewed by the same court.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot sit on appeal on its own decision; where a party has been heard and a considered decision made, an alleged wrong conclusion of law is a ground for appeal and not for review.
- An error in appreciation, understanding or exposition of the law does not warrant review; such issues ought to form the basis of an appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 8th December 2021 is dismissed as misconceived, legally untenable and an abuse of the due process of the court.
- 2.Costs of the Application awarded to the Plaintiff/Respondent.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to review own decision; review jurisprudence under applicable procedural law
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Young Chul Choi v Kenya Railways Corporation [2022] KEELC 428 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Application dated 8th December 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/428/eng@2022-02-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.