Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedMotion dated 31/11/2023 arising from MCLE 47 of 2019 (Thika)· [2024] KEELC 5006 (KLR)

Njoroge (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Christina Wageni Mburu) v Mwangi & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5006 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
27 June 2024
1,309 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court confirmed you must choose between appealing a decision or asking for a review—you cannot lose a review and then appeal the same ruling.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Moses Ng'ang'a Njoroge, moved the High Court at Thika by Notice of Motion seeking leave for the firm of Kimani Kahete & Co Advocates to come on record after judgment, stay of execution pending appeal in MCLE 47 of 2019, and leave to file a memorandum of appeal out of time. He deponed that judgment was delivered against him on 18/8/2022, that his application for review was dismissed with costs on 7/9/2023, and that time for appealing had lapsed, and that contempt proceedings against him made the appeal nugatory. The Respondent, Fredrick Nyaga Mwangi, opposed, showing that the Applicant had already lodged Thika Civil Appeal No. E048 of 2023 against the ruling dismissing his review, and that no explanation was offered for the delay since 7/9/2023. Though the application was grounded on Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules which do not avail such prayers, the court declined to strike it for wrong provisions. On the merits, applying Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rules 1 and 2, and following Daniel Gicheru Kingori & 2 Others v Wambugu, the court held that a party who unsuccessfully pursued review cannot attack the same order by appeal, as that would constitute a double attack and abuse of process. The uncontroverted existence of the live appeal also rendered the application multiplicitous. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondents on 27 June 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of application under wrong provisions

Holding

An application will not fail solely because it was filed under wrong provisions of law

Reasoning

The court noted none of Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the High Court (Practice and Procedure Rules) avails a party the prayers sought, but applied the settled principle that misjoinder of statutory provisions is not fatal, citing Ashmi Investment Limited v Riakina Limited. The court therefore proceeded to the merits.

p. 2
02

Bar on appealing a matter previously pursued by way of review

Holding

A party cannot challenge the same decision by both review and appeal; such litigation is an abuse of process

Reasoning

Relying on a combined reading of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rules 1 and 2, and the Court of Appeal decision in Daniel Gicheru Kingori & 2 Others v Wambugu, the court held that permitting a party who failed on review to attack the same judgment on appeal would open several fronts in litigation; litigation must come to an end.

p. 3
03

Multiplicity of suits and abuse of process

Holding

The application was abusive given the existence of Thika Civil Appeal No. E048 of 2023

Reasoning

The Respondent demonstrated that the Applicant had already lodged an appeal against the ruling dismissing his review application, uncontroverted by the Applicant. Seeking leave to appeal out of time over the same matter therefore amounted to multiplicity of suits and abuse of court process.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who opts for review of a decree or order and fails cannot thereafter appeal against the same order he sought to review

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 31/11/2023 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Judicature ActCap 8 - High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules, Rules 1, 2 and 3
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rules 1 & 2

Cases cited (2)

  • Ashmi Investment Limited Vs. Riakina Limited & another
    Civil Appeal (Application) 384 of 2019 [2023] KECA 410 (KLR)
  • Daniel Gicheru Kingori & 2 Others Vs. Wambugu
    Civil Application E167 of 2022 [2022] KECA 1168 (KLR)
On appeal from
Thika Magistrates' Court
MCLE 47 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
High Court (Practice and Procedure Rules of the Judicature Act Cap 8, Rules 1, 2 and 3 as invoked by the applicant; Section 80 Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Civil Procedure Rules considered

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njoroge (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Christina Wageni Mburu) v Mwangi & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5006 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Motion dated 31/11/2023 arising from MCLE 47 of 2019 (Thika). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5006/eng@2024-06-27

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