Manchester Outfitters Limited & 2 others v Galot Holdings Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 358 of 2012) [2024] KEELC 6029 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court reinstated a long-running land suit, confirming that dismissed cases can be revived through review even years later.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the review despite functus officio and limitation
The Court retains jurisdiction; a dismissal of a suit is a final determination but the functus officio doctrine has exceptions covering review, and no limitation period applies to a review motion.
Relying on Mombasa Bricks & Tiles and Silvanus Kizito, the court held that incidental post-judgment processes including review are within a court's powers after final determination. It also held limitation does not bar a review motion since the motion challenges the dismissal order itself, not the substantive suit.
Whether the failure to annex the order sought to be reviewed is fatal
Not fatal; Order 45 does not require annexure of the order or ruling sought to be reviewed, it is only a practice convention.
Following Peter Kirika Githaiga v Betty Rashid, the court held that where a party directs the court to the part of the ruling complained of and the decision is on the court file, the application is not fatally defective. The court invoked the oxygen principle under Article 159 of the Constitution.
Whether error apparent on the face of the record was established
No; the complaint went to the merit of the dismissal decision, which is a matter for appeal, not review.
The court found the dismissal was made after hearing counsel who had raised the pendency of HCCC 55 of 2012 and the stay application. Re-litigating the correctness of that decision is appealable error, not an error apparent on the face of the record.
Whether sufficient reason exists to warrant review
Yes; the pendency of the directorship dispute in HCCC 55 of 2012, which had stayed related matters, plus the delay explanation, constituted sufficient reason and the delay was excused.
The court adopted the non-analogous interpretation of 'sufficient reason'. Given the dispute over the 1st Plaintiff's directorship, locus objections and the stay of related matters, it would have been impossible to proceed; with the directorship resolved, justice required a hearing on the merits with no undue prejudice to Defendants.
Legal principles established
#- There is no limitation of time as regards a motion to review orders of the Court; the functus officio doctrine does not bar post-judgment incidental processes such as review.
- A preliminary objection cannot be raised where any fact has to be ascertained or where what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.
- 'Any other sufficient reason' under Order 45 Rule 1 need not be analogous to the other grounds for review.
Court orders
#- 1.The Court does hereby review and set aside its orders of 31st October, 2018 dismissing the suit for want of prosecution.
- 2.The Plaint dated 19th June, 2012 be and is hereby reinstated.
- 3.The matter shall be set out down for hearing on priority basis.
- 4.The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rules 1, 3(2) and 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kitonga & 2 others v Hashtag Biz Hub Co. Limited (Environment and Land Appeal 67 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 3820 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 3820 (KLR)15 May 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Manchester Outfitters Limited & 2 others v Galot Holdings Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 358 of 2012) [2024] KEELC 6029 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Motion dated May 28, 2019 in a suit filed by Plaint dated 19th June, 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6029/eng@2024-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.