[2001] KECA 135 (KLR)
The Court held that it is a settled principle that once the Court of Appeal has pronounced its judgment, it lacks jurisdiction to vary or set aside that judgment, even if it is demonstrated that the Court may have erred. The Court emphasized that it is a court of record and is limited to the evidence and record...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KECA 135 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Charles Edward Njoroge; Respondent: Grace Wambui Wamanda
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 191 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Correction of Errors in Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Fresh Evidence, Finality of Judgments
- 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
Charles Edward Njoroge
Applicant
Grace Wambui Wamanda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Correction of Errors in Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal can vary or set aside its own judgment after it has been pronounced on the basis of fresh evidence not previously before the court.
- 2 Whether the introduction of new evidence after judgment constitutes grounds for review or variation of the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that it is a settled principle that once the Court of Appeal has pronounced its judgment, it lacks jurisdiction to vary or set aside that judgment, even if it is demonstrated that the Court may have erred. The Court emphasized that it is a court of record and is limited to the evidence and record before it at the time of judgment. The introduction of fresh evidence after judgment, regardless of its significance or the impossibility of its earlier availability, does not provide grounds for review or variation of the judgment. Consequently, the application was deemed an abuse of the court process and was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application is dismissed as an abuse of the process of court.
- Costs assessed at Shs.4,000/= to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: OMOLO, SHAH & BOSIRE, JJ.A CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 191 OF 2001 (UR. 103/2001)
BETWEEN
CHARLES EDWARD NJOROGE ..................................APPLICANT
AND
GRACE WAMBUI WAMANDA ................................RESPONDENT
(Application for correction of errors in the majority Judgment of the Court of Appeal Nakuru (Omolo, Shah, & Bosire JJ.A.) delivered on 23rd February, 2001
in
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 126 OF 1999) ********************
RULING OF THE COURT
It has been held time and again that once a judgment of this Court is pronounced it cannot be varied or set aside even if it could be shown that the Court may have erred. The application which is now before us seeks to set aside and vary the judgment of the Court delivered on 23rd day of February, 2001 on the ground that fresh evidence unearthed shows that the land, the subject matter of the appeal, are shares in a public company as opposed to a private company. Such evidence was not before the superior court. Nor was it before this Court. This is a Court of Record and it goes by record before it. It cannot after judgment look at fresh evidence even if such evidence could not have been available earlier. The application before us is an abuse of the process of court. It is dismissed with costs which we assess at Shs.4,000/=
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 3rd day of August, 2001
R.S.C. OMOLO .................. JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.B. SHAH .................... JUDGE OF APPEAL
S.E.O. BOSIRE ................... JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original. DEPUTY REGISTRAR.