Mang Hotel & another v Mose & 13 others (Cause 267 of 2014) [2023] KEELRC 1312 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court can correct its own ruling on review where it grants relief nobody asked for — here, a bank guarantee replaced a cash deposit.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the order made by Mbaru J on 9th February, 2023 granting relief not sought by the applicant was an error on the face of the record
- 2.Whether the Court should, in review, substitute the order for deposit of the decretal sum with an order for a renewable Banker's Guarantee of Kshs.2,417,422.15
Key legal issues
#Whether a court may review its own order where the relief granted was never sought
Yes - granting a prayer the applicant never sought is an error on the face of the record correctable on review
The Court perused the application dated 22nd November, 2022 and found that the applicant had sought to provide security for the decretal sum pending appeal by way of deposit or Banker's Guarantee, but the learned Judge instead ordered deposit of the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account. Since that order was never sought, it amounted to an error on the face of the record which the Court's review jurisdiction could correct. The review application therefore succeeded to the extent of substituting the order with one for a renewable Banker's Guarantee.
Legal principles established
#- A court has power under its review jurisdiction to correct an order granted in error where the relief granted was never sought by the party
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 13th February, 2023 is allowed to the extent that the order of the learned Judge issued on 9th February, 2023 be and is hereby substituted with an order directing that the applicant do deposit a renewable Banker's Guarantee of the decretal sum being Kshs.2,417,422.15 in the name of M/S Lucy Njiru & Company Advocates pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. E880 of 2022
- 2.Costs to abide the outcome of the Appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- The Court's inherent review jurisdiction to correct an error on the face of the record
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This was obviously an error on the face of the record which the Court has power under its review jurisdiction to correct.
The application dated 13th February, 2023 is therefore hereby allowed to the extent that the order of the learned Judge issued on 9th February, 2023 be and is hereby substituted with an order directing that the applicant do deposit a renewable Banker's Guarantee of the decretal sum being Kshs.2,417,422.15 in the name of M/S Lucy Njiru & Company Advocates pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. E880 of 2022.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, the full names of the parties, or the court/station on its face
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mang Hotel & another v Mose & 13 others (Cause 267 of 2014) [2023] KEELRC 1312 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 13th February, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1312/eng@2023-05-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.