Motrex Limited v Dahir & another (Civil Case E134 of 2023) [2025] KEMC 320 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court corrected its own dismissal after realising it had overlooked repair receipts already on record, awarding the plaintiff over Ksh. 833,000.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the judgment herein
- 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the court's failure to consider receipts in a further list of documents filed and admitted by consent constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record under Order 45 rule 1
Yes. The further list of documents dated 10/2/2025 containing receipts was on the record and admitted by consent on 5/8/2025; the court inadvertently failed to consider it, a glaring, self-evident omission justifying review.
The court adopted the conditions precedent for a review based on failure to consider evidence: the evidence must be on record, material to the outcome, the judgment completely silent on it, and the omission plain and patent. The record showed the further list of documents with receipts was filed 10/2/2025 and admitted by consent on 5/8/2025, yet the judgment held no receipts were produced. The court attributed the oversight to challenges of e-filing and allowed the application ex debito justitiae, noting the defendant prudently did not oppose.
The proper scope of review under Order 45 rule 1 - errors of law or evidence versus errors apparent on the face of the record
An erroneous view of law or evidence is a ground of appeal, not review; only a glaring, self-evident error or omission apparent on the face of the record warrants review.
Relying on John Peter Kamau Ruhangi v Kenya Reinsurance Corporation, Pancras T. Swai v Kenya Breweries Limited and National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau, the court noted that review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record - errors not requiring elaborate argument or long-drawn reasoning, and not erroneous conclusions of law or evidence, which are appealable. The present omission of evidence actually on record met the narrow review threshold.
Legal principles established
#- For failure to consider evidence to qualify as an error apparent on the face of the record, four conditions must be satisfied: the evidence was on record; it was material to the outcome; the judgment is completely silent on it; and the omission is plain and patent, not debatable.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 25/11/2025 is hereby allowed
- 2.The order dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs is reviewed; judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally in the sum of Ksh. 1,041,528 less 20% contribution, leaving Ksh. 833,222.40 due to the plaintiff
- 3.The plaintiff is awarded 80% costs of the suit and interest; interest on special damages accrues at court rates from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment/decree
- 4.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act
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.
The application dated 25/11/2025 is hereby allowed;
The order dismissing the plaintifi’s suit with costs is hereby reviewed and in efiect, judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintifi as against the defendants, jointly and severally, in the sum of Ksh. 1,041,528/=.
a. The evidence was on record; b. The evidence was material to the outcome; c. The judgment or ruling is completely silent on it; and d. The omission is plain and patent, not debatable.
The application must of necessity be allowed ex debito justitiae.
Issues in the judgment
#The arithmetic in the award is internally inconsistent: the judgment first enters judgment in the sum of Ksh. 1,041,528 subject to 20% deduction, but the breakdown labels Ksh. 1,041,528 as 'Special damages' and Ksh. 833,222.40 as the balance due.
The judgment states the plaintiff's suit was dismissed, yet an earlier application is described as having been produced 'by consent vide the application dated 25th July, 2025' and the list admitted on 5/8/2025, while the review application is dated the same day as the judgment (25/11/2025) - the judgment date and application date coincide.
The judgment refers to the application being 'brought pursuant to... sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act' but the numbered analysis skips paragraph 12 and the case law section contains sub-numbering anomalies.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Motrex Limited v Dahir & another (Civil Case E134 of 2023) [2025] KEMC 320 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/320/eng@2025-12-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.