RWN v NKM (Review of Judgment on Distribution of Matrimonial Property)
The bottom line
#A court judgment that ignores a clear, written agreement between spouses can be challenged through a review process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Error apparent on the face of the record as a ground for review
Review allowed because the judgment of Musyoka J, though purporting to adopt the parties' agreement, omitted the refund of Kshs.200,000 and misallocated property B14.
The court found that Musyoka J had indicated more than once that he would rely on the parties' agreement in distributing the properties. However, in the final orders, property B14, which the agreement allocated to the applicant, was reflected alongside properties going to the wife, and the refund of Kshs.200,000 was not mentioned. These omissions constituted obvious errors apparent on the face of the record, warranting review to give effect to the agreement's letter and spirit.
Review versus appeal as the appropriate remedy
The respondent's objection that the applicant's only recourse was an appeal did not prevail; the court found reviewable errors on the face of the record.
The respondent opposed the application on the basis that no grounds for review had been brought forward and the applicant's recourse was an appeal. The court, having considered the application, response and submissions, concluded that obvious errors apparent on the face of the record existed, satisfying the review threshold, and therefore exercised its review jurisdiction rather than relegating the applicant to an appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A judgment that fails to give effect to an agreement the court expressly relied upon contains an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment dated 27th July 2018 reviewed to the extent that matrimonial properties are divided as follows: RWN to get plots Nos. [xxxx]; NKM to get Plots Nos. [xxxx]
- 2.R to pay N Kshs.200,000/= as a refund for wiring
- 3.N to vacate all properties allocated to R
- 4.Each party to henceforth collect rent, if any payable, in their respective properties
- 5.Each party to bear his/her own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Review jurisdiction for error apparent on the face of the record (application dated 20th August 2018 seeking review of judgment dated 27th July 2018)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "RWN v NKM (Review of Judgment on Distribution of Matrimonial Property)", Case Analysis (2020). . Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.