Wilson njiri gikonyo v Ruth Mary Wangui & 2 others [2022] KEELC 679 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substitution of deceased plaintiff's legal representatives after judgment
The applicants were substituted solely for purposes of the review application, as Order 24 governs pending suits and none remained after the judgment
Order 24 applies to suits that are pending or ongoing. Following the judgment of 15th February 2013 dismissing the plaintiff's case, no suit remained pending. Revival under Order 24 Rule 7(2) was inapplicable. The court found no bar to substituting the holders of the grant of letters of administration for purposes of the review application only.
Whether the conditions for review under Order 45 Rule 1 were met
None of the grounds - discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason - was established, and the application was brought after inordinate delay
The applicants' complaints went to the correctness of the judge's exposition of the law on adverse possession and the conduct of the proceedings. Such grievances, even if valid, are appellate matters. A review cannot be used to challenge the merits of a judgment, and a judge of concurrent jurisdiction cannot sit on appeal over a fellow judge's decision. Inordinate delay of over seven years further disentitled the applicants.
Whether delivery of a judgment instead of the reserved ruling was an error on the face of the record
No - the disposal by written submissions and delivery of a judgment was proper under Order 37, no Order 37 Rule 19 directions having been given
Under Order 37, there is no requirement of oral evidence unless the court directs treatment as a plaint under Rule 19. Since the parties agreed to dispose of the originating summons by written submissions, the judge properly prepared a final judgment, not a ruling, based on affidavit evidence, the preliminary objection and the submissions.
Legal principles established
#- A court, after passing judgment, becomes functus officio and cannot revisit the judgment on merits save as provided by law
- A review may only be granted to correct an apparent error or omission that is self-evident; a different view of the matter or an erroneous exposition of law is not a ground for review
- An application for review is not an appeal; errors of law by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction can only be corrected on appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants substituted in place of the deceased plaintiff for purposes of the present application only
- 2.The applicants' Notice of Motion dated 18th September 2020 dismissed with costs to the defendant/respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- George (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Deceased Richard Muchai Kibathi) v Matathia & another[2026] KEELC 5518 (KLR)17 Sept 2026applied
- Ngeru & another v Njagi & 3 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 1031 of 2013) [2026] KEELC 4561 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4561 (KLR)9 Jul 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wilson njiri gikonyo v Ruth Mary Wangui & 2 others [2022] KEELC 679 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Notice of Motion dated 18th September 2020 (in ELC Originating Summons dated 3rd May 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/679/eng@2022-03-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.