[2021] KESC 64 (KLR)

[2021] KESC 64 (KLR)

The Supreme Court unanimously held that while it possesses jurisdiction to review its own decisions, the applicant failed to satisfy the established principles for such review. The applicant did not provide sufficient or cogent reasons to justify departure from the earlier decision dismissing his application for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KESC 64 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jimnah Mwangi Gichanga; Respondent: Secretary, Teachers Service Commission
Court
Supreme Court
Court Station
Supreme Court of Kenya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Application 7 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
PM Mwilu, MK Ibrahim, SC Wanjala, NS Ndungu, I Lenaola
Legal Topics
Review of Supreme Court Decisions, Extension of Time, Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Review of Supreme Court Decisions Extension of Time Jurisdiction of Supreme Court

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jimnah Mwangi Gichanga

Applicant

Secretary, Teachers Service Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Supreme Court Decision

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review its own decisions.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant satisfied the principles for review of a Supreme Court decision.
  3. 3 Whether sufficient and cogent reasons were provided to depart from the earlier decision dismissing the application for extension of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously held that while it possesses jurisdiction to review its own decisions, the applicant failed to satisfy the established principles for such review. The applicant did not provide sufficient or cogent reasons to justify departure from the earlier decision dismissing his application for extension of time to file an appeal out of time. The Court found no exceptional circumstances or errors apparent on the face of the record that would warrant review. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion application dated 24th March 2020 and filed on 30th April 2020 is dismissed.
  • There shall be no orders as to costs.