In re LNK (Family Miscellaneous Civil Case E003 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 17667 (KLR) (27 November 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 17667 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT THIKA FAMILY MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CASE E003 OF 2025 FN MUCHEMI, J NOVEMBER 27, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF MENTAL HEALTH ACT CAP 248 LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF LNK IN THE MATTER OF MERCY MURUGI KARIUKI ............................................................... PETITIONER RULING 1. The application dated 13th October 2025 seeks for orders of review the court’s orders dated 3rd April 2025 in respect to an alleged error apparent on the face of the record in respect to case number ELC 116 of 2025 instead of ELC 26 of 2023 and omission of the word “Chartered” in the name of the bank which ought to read “Standard Chartered Bank.” The applicant further seeks for orders of access of the subject mpesa account for her number 072xxxx04 and be allowed continuous operations of the funds currently held in the account for the treatment of the subject. 2. The applicant states that she was issued with a decree on 16th April 2025 after filing an application for guardian ad litem on behalf of the subject. The applicant further states that she noted an error in the case number ELC No. 116 of 2023 instead of ELC Case No. 26 of 2023 and an omission of the word “Chartered” in Standard Bank instead of Standard Chartered Bank of Kenya. 3. The applicant further states that she came across the subject’s mobile number 0722929204 which has been active and runs the risk of being mismanaged. Further, the claimant in ELC No. 26 of 2023 indicated that he made some payments through the said mobile number and she requires access to her financial statement to be produced as evidence in court. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17667/eng@2025-11-27 1
page 1 of 3
The Law Whether the orders sought for review are warranted 4. Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Code sets out the parameters for an application for review as follows:Rule 1 (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved:a. by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or b. by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or order made or made the order without unreasonable delay. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the appellate court the case which he applies for the review. 5. It then follows that Order 45 provides for three circumstances under which an order for review can be made. The applicant must demonstrate to the court that there has been discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed. Secondly, the applicant must demonstrate to the court that it made a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The third ground for review is worded broadly; an application for review can be made for any other sufficient reason. 6. The applicant has grounded her application on errors apparent on the face of the record. I have perused the ruling dated 3rd April 2025 and noted that the case number therein is ELC Case No. 116 of 2003 instead of Kenol ELC Case No. 26 of 2023. Furthermore, the word “Chartered” was omitted from Standard Bank. 7. In my considered view, the applicant has satisfied the grounds for review. The case number is rectified to read Kenol ELC Case No. 26 of 2023 and the name of the bank is Standard Chartered Bank of Kenya. 8. The applicant has further sought orders to access the funds in the subject’s mobile number 072xxxx04 as it risks being mismanaged or transferred without the subject’s consent. The court has already appointed the applicant as the guardian ad litem in the ruling dated 3rd April 2025. 9. I find the application merited and give the following orders: - 10. a. That paragraph 18 (c) of the ruling is hereby amended for the name of the bank to read Standard Chartered Bank. b. That the applicant is hereby authorized to have access and to transact in the subject’s Mpesa account mobile number 072xxxx04 to cater for the personal needs of the Subject. It is hereby so ordered. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17667/eng@2025-11-27 2
page 2 of 3
RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT THIKA THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. F. MUCHEMI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17667/eng@2025-11-27 3
page 3 of 3