Vanessa Murray v Peter Kimani Kairu T/A Kimani Kairu & Company Advocates

judgment clearly determined both the principal sum and the interest payable, and that the present application is, in substance, an attempt by the Respondent/Applicant to re-litigate issues already determined by the Court. 4. The Applicant/Respondent further deposes that the principal sum of USD 74,115.78 was eventually paid on 8th October 2024 and that the appropriate exchange rate for purposes of calculating interest is the rate prevailing on the date of payment. She relies on the decision in Heco Uberseehandel v Mac’s Pharmaceutical Ltd Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999, which held that where judgment is expressed in a foreign currency, the conversion into local currency should ordinarily be done at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of payment or enforcement. Analysis and determination 5. Having considered the application, the affidavits and the submissions by the applicant, the sole issue for determination is whether the Applicant/Respondent has satisfied the legal threshold for review of the judgment delivered on 24th July 2025. 6. The jurisdiction of this Court to review its own orders is provided under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 7. Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that: “ Any person who considers himself aggrieved— 1. by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred or 2. by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Act, 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 made the order.” 1. While the procedure framework is outlined in Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides: “ Any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order... 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 on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, may apply for a review.” 9. It is well settled that a review is confined to the grounds set out under Order 45 and cannot be used as a means of re-arguing or re-litigating matters already determined by the Court. An erroneous conclusion of law or evidence is not a ground for review but may constitute a ground for appeal. The Court of Appeal stated this principle in Francis Origo & Another v Jacob Kumali Mungala [2005] eKLR. 10. From the record, the Respondent/Applicant’s case is premised on the ground of an alleged error apparent on the face of the record. The impugned judgment expressly stated that: “The applicant is https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3496/eng@2026-03-12 2

page 2 of 3

awarded interest on the sum of USD 74,115.78 at court rates from 9th June 2021 until the date of actual payment”. 11. That order addressed both the quantum and the date from which interest accrues. 12. The Respondent/Applicant asks this Court to alter the manner of implementation of that order by directing that the judgment sum be converted into Kenya Shillings before interest is calculated. The argument advanced is that the Court inadvertently awarded interest in a manner that results in an inequitable outcome. 13. In my view, the complaint advanced does not disclose a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, nor does it demonstrate the discovery of new and important evidence bearing on the correctness of the judgment. The judgment is clear and unambiguous and does not require clarification. 14. Rather, the Respondent/Applicant’s grievance is directed at the substantive effect of the judgment itself. Such a grievance properly lies by way of appeal and not review. 15. The Court of Appeal in National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau [1997] eKLR stated: “ A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission…It will not be granted merely because the court has taken a different view of the matter.” 16. A review is not intended to enable a court to reconsider its judgment merely because another view is possible. The Court must also bear in mind that the jurisdiction of review is a narrow one. The power of review is intended to correct manifest errors and not to afford a party a second bite at the cherry. 17. To permit such a course proposed by the Applicant would undermine the principles of finality in litigation and judicial economy. A court cannot be invited to sit in appeal over its own decisions under the guise of a review. Where a party is dissatisfied with a ruling, the proper recourse lies in an appeal. 18. I am therefore not persuaded that the applicant has demonstrated the grounds necessary to warrant review of the judgment. 19. For the reasons given, the Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2025 is without merit and is hereby dismissed. 20. Costs of this application shall be awarded to the Applicant/Respondent. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2026. P.M. MULWA JUDGE In the presence of: N/A for Applicant/Respondent Ms. Ogola h/b for Mr. Marete for Respondent/Applicant Court Assistant: Carlos https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/3496/eng@2026-03-12 3

page 3 of 3