Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedJudicial Review Application dated 4th October 2021 (High Court, Narok)· [2021] KEELRC 100 (KLR)

Good Hope Sacco Limited v Naanyu Angeline Kipteng [2021] KEELRC 100 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
14 December 2021
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,157 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

#

The High Court refused to intervene in a finished Sacco case, confirming that complaints about a concluded judgment belong in an appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Good Hope Sacco Limited, through Muigai, Kemei & Associates Advocates, filed an application dated 4th October 2021 invoking Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking that the High Court in its supervisory role call for and stay proceedings in Kilgoris CMEL No. 2 of 2019 (Naanyu Angeline Kipteng v Good Hope Sacco Limited). The applicant complained that the Kilgoris Chief Magistrate's Court heard and determined the cause in excess of its territorial jurisdiction (the cause of action allegedly arising in Narok town), that a jurisdictional objection raised on 3rd August 2020 was dismissed on 1st October 2020 without proper consideration, that the claimant's case was uncontroverted after the Sacco closed its case without calling witnesses, and that the respondent's costs were taxed at Kshs. 300,000 in the Sacco's absence, with alleged bias. The respondent opposed, noting judgment had been delivered on 29th July 2021, no appeal was filed, the bill of costs was served and taxed after the applicant ignored notices, and there were no proceedings capable of being stayed. The respondent filed submissions; the applicant filed none. Wasilwa J held that Articles 6 and 7 have nothing to do with the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction, which rests on Article 165(6) and (7); that supervisory jurisdiction relates to pending proceedings before subordinate courts; and that the Kilgoris matter, being concluded, could only be a subject of appeal. The application was dismissed on 14th December 2021.

Key legal issues

#
01

Scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over concluded subordinate court matters

Holding

The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) and (7) relates to proceedings before subordinate courts; a concluded cause with judgment rendered is not a pending proceeding and cannot be the subject of a supervisory application.

Reasoning

The court reproduced Article 165(6) and (7) and held that the supervisory jurisdiction is 'in relation to proceedings before the subordinate court'. Since the Kilgoris cause had been heard, judgment delivered on 29th July 2021 and the respondent's bill of costs taxed, nothing was pending. The applicant's complaint about territorial jurisdiction and taxation should have been pursued by appeal, which the applicant had not filed.

p. 2
02

Correct constitutional foundation for a supervisory application

Holding

The application was fatally brought under Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, which deal with devolution and language and have no bearing on the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction, which rests on Article 165(6) and (7).

Reasoning

The court accepted the respondent's submission that the applicant cited the wrong provisions. Articles 6 and 7 concern devolution and access to services and national/official language respectively, and 'definitely have nothing to do with supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court'. The correct provisions are Article 165(6) and (7), which the court set out verbatim.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) and (7) applies to proceedings before subordinate courts that are pending, not to matters already determined; a dissatisfied party's remedy against a concluded cause is an appeal, not a supervisory application.
  • Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution (devolution/access to services and national/official language) do not confer supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 4th October 2021 is not merited and is dismissed accordingly

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 6, 7, 165(6) & (7)
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 89
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51

Cases cited (1)

  • Director of Public Prosecution V Perry Mansukh Kansagara & 8 others
    [2020] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 165(6) & (7) of the Constitution (supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Good Hope Sacco Limited v Naanyu Angeline Kipteng [2021] KEELRC 100 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Judicial Review Application dated 4th October 2021 (High Court, Narok). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/100/eng@2021-12-14

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