[2017] KEHC 3403 (KLR)
The court held that the application for review or variation of the orders made on 4th April 2017 must be heard by Onginjo J, the judge who made the original order, as she is still stationed at the court and is not precluded by absence or other cause. The rules requiring the same judge to hear review applications...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 3403 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: A.G Riungu & Company Advocates; Respondent: Michimikuru Tea Growers SACCO; Applicant: KCB Bank Kenya Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 90 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Application for Review of Order
- Outcome
- Application for review to be heard by original judge.
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Review of Orders, Jurisdiction of Judge, Application Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
A.G Riungu & Company Advocates
Respondent
Michimikuru Tea Growers SACCO
Respondent
KCB Bank Kenya Limited
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Review of Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for review should be heard by the judge who made the original order.
- 2 Whether there are circumstances that preclude the original judge from hearing the review application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for review or variation of the orders made on 4th April 2017 must be heard by Onginjo J, the judge who made the original order, as she is still stationed at the court and is not precluded by absence or other cause. The rules requiring the same judge to hear review applications serve the purpose of judicial order and efficiency, and there is no justification to depart from this requirement in the present case. Accordingly, the file should be transmitted to Onginjo J for consideration of the application.
Court Disposition
Application for review to be heard by original judge.
Orders
- The file is to be transmitted immediately to Onginjo J for consideration of the application dated 4th April 2017.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
MISC APPL NO. 90 OF 2016
A.G RIUNGU & COMPANY ADVOCATES.....................RESPONDENT
-VS-
MICHIMIKURU TEA GROWERS SACCO.......................RESPONDENT
KCB BANK KENYA LIMITED.............INTRESTED PARTY/APPLICANT
RULING
Review of order
[1] The significant order sought in the Notice of Motion Application dated 4th April 2017 is review or variation of orders made on 4th April 2017. The said order was made by Onginjo J. The law as I understand it is that such application should be heard by the court which passed the judgment or made the order. See section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act which provides that:-
80. Any person who considers himself aggrieved—
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Act, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. [Underlining mine]
See also Order 45 rule 2 which requires such applications to be made to the judge who passed the decree or made the order unless such judge is no longer in the station or if is still attached to the station, the judge is precluded by absence or other cause for a period of 3 months next after the application for review is lodged. Onginjo J is still in station and there is nothing which precludes her from hearing this application. This rule serves good purpose and order; it is also in recognition of the need for judges to review their own orders. I also note from the record that the things complained of can only be dealt with by court 3. Accordingly, for those reasons, I direct that this file be transmitted immediately to Onginjo J who shall consider the application dated 4th April 2017. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Meru this 21st day of September 2017
---------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Riungu advocate for applicant
Mr.Ojiambo advocate for Mr. Kibiti for interested Party
Mr. Kauma for respondents –absent
-------------------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE