Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Petition of 2010; application dated 14th February, 2024)

Munayi Opondo Isaac (Secretary General of the Intended 13th Petitioner/Applicant Trade Union) v 1st Respondent Trust & Others

High Court of Kenya
9 January 2025
LML N Mugambi
3,076 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court dismissed a trade union's review application, confirming that review only fixes obvious errors on a ruling—it cannot be used to re-argue a lost case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Intended 13th Petitioner, a Trade Union represented by its Secretary General Munayi Opondo Isaac, moved the High Court by Notice of Motion dated 14th February, 2024 seeking, principally, reinstatement of its application dated 24th November, 2021 to be heard de novo, effectively seeking review of the ruling of Justice Thande delivered on 15th September, 2023 which had dismissed its joinder application. The applicant argued that, as a Trade Union representing over 8,000 members of the 1st Respondent Trust and thus a co-owner of the suit property, it had a proximate interest and had previously participated as an interested party. The 1st to 10th Petitioners opposed, contending the application was defective, belated, and that the proper recourse was appeal; the 1st Respondent asserted the court was functus officio and that the threshold for review was not met. The court framed a single issue: whether the application was merited. Applying Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the principles in Mbogo v Shah, National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau and Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo, the court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any error apparent on the face of the record; its complaint was argumentative, not self-evident, and the application was an attempt to relitigate issues already decided on merits, including the finding of inordinate delay. Interfering with a concurrent-jurisdiction discretionary finding would amount to sitting on appeal. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant met the threshold for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

The application failed; no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated and the application was an attempt to relitigate matters already decided on merits by Justice Thande.

Reasoning

The court examined the ruling of 15th September, 2023 dismissing the joinder application for inordinate delay and lack of proximate stake. The applicant alleged an error on the face of the record but did not show how the finding on inordinate delay was erroneous, nor explain the delay. Review is an equitable remedy, not a chance to re-argue; disagreement with a discretionary finding is a matter for appeal, not review.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Review is not an appeal; an applicant must demonstrate a self-evident error apparent on the face of the record, not an arguable alternative view
  • A court will not interfere with a discretionary finding of a judge of concurrent jurisdiction, as doing so amounts to sitting on appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 14th February, 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction of the court that made the order)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Munayi Opondo Isaac (Secretary General of the Intended 13th Petitioner/Applicant Trade Union) v 1st Respondent Trust & Others", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Petition of 2010; application dated 14th February, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/

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