Mbugua v Mugada (Commercial Case E4756 of 2025) [2026] SCC 226 (KLR)

The court held that registration under section 8 of the Traffic Act is only prima facie evidence of ownership, rebuttable by other evidence. Whether section 20(a) applied, when property passed and the effect of the charge in favour of Group Power Company Limited are matters requiring consideration of the transaction's evidence and circumstances. Evidentiary questions cannot, without more, be transformed into an error apparent on the face of the record, and review cannot be used as a second hearing on the merits.

Relying on Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v. Kogo and National Bank of Kenya v. Ndungu Njau, the court distinguished a mere erroneous decision from an error apparent on the face of the record. Misconstruing a statute or reaching an erroneous conclusion of law is not a ground for review. A party dissatisfied with the court's conclusions after consideration of the evidence must pursue an appeal on a question of law, since review cannot permit the court to sit on appeal over its own judgment.

Under section 42(1) of the Small Claims Court Act, filing a review application does not operate as a stay, though the court retains discretion to order a stay with conditions. That discretion is properly exercised only where the review satisfies the statutory threshold. Since the substantive review was found without merit, a stay would merely serve to preserve a judgment against an application that had already failed; the prayer for stay consequently failed.