[2025] KEHC 7626 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7626 (KLR)

The court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record as required under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The alleged errors raised by the Applicant, including the claim of absolute privilege and failure to prove defamation, were not self-evident and would require elaborate arguments and re-examination of evidence, which is not the purpose of a review application. The court emphasized that review is not an avenue to re-argue a case or sit on appeal over its own or a concurrent court's decision. The Applicant's remedy lay in appeal, not review. Consequently, the application for review and stay of...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7626 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Hon Simon Ng'ang'a Mbugua; Respondent: Jacinta Wangari Gitau
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 May 2025
Case Number
Civil Suit 546 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
SN Mutuku
Legal Topics
Defamation, Review of Judgment, Error Apparent on Record, Absolute Privilege, Damages Award
Source Language
English
Tort Law Civil Procedure Defamation Review of Judgment Error Apparent on Record Absolute Privilege Damages Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hon Simon Ng'ang'a Mbugua

Applicant

Jacinta Wangari Gitau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review of the judgment awarding damages for defamation.
  2. 2 Whether the impugned letter was covered by absolute privilege and thus not actionable in defamation.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent proved the ingredients of defamation to the required standard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record as required under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The alleged errors raised by the Applicant, including the claim of absolute privilege and failure to prove defamation, were not self-evident and would require elaborate arguments and re-examination of evidence, which is not the purpose of a review application. The court emphasized that review is not an avenue to re-argue a case or sit on appeal over its own or a concurrent court's decision. The Applicant's remedy lay in appeal, not review. Consequently, the application for review and stay of...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 3rd February 2025 is dismissed with costs for want of merit.