[2023] KEHC 17839 (KLR)
The court found that while there was no error on the face of the record, there was sufficient reason to review the order striking out the appeal. The failure to join the interested parties, who were directly affected by the outcome of the appeal, was a curable defect. The court held that the interests of justice...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 17839 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Evelyn Muringi Githogora; Respondent: Equity Bank Kenya Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E776 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Review of Order Striking Out Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for review allowed; order striking out appeal set aside; interested parties joined as respondents; costs to respondent.
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Joinder of Parties, Error on Face of Record
- 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
Evelyn Muringi Githogora
Appellant
Equity Bank Kenya Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Review of Order Striking Out Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant has satisfied the grounds for review of the order striking out the appeal.
- 2 Whether the interested parties should be joined to the appeal to enable it to be heard on its merits.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while there was no error on the face of the record, there was sufficient reason to review the order striking out the appeal. The failure to join the interested parties, who were directly affected by the outcome of the appeal, was a curable defect. The court held that the interests of justice required that the interested parties be joined to the appeal so that the matter could be heard and determined on its merits. The court exercised its jurisdiction to review the order, set aside the dismissal, and ordered the joinder of the interested parties, subject to the appellant paying costs to the respondent for the inconvenience caused by the omission.
Court Disposition
Application for review allowed; order striking out appeal set aside; interested parties joined as respondents; costs to respondent.
Orders
- The order dated January 17, 2023 is reviewed and the order striking out the appeal is set aside.
- Grace Wamuyu Mathenge and Geepak Limited are joined to this appeal as the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Githogora v Equity Bank Kenya Limited (Civil Appeal E776 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 17839 (KLR) (Civ) (19 May 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 17839 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Civil Appeal E776 of 2021
DAS Majanja, J
May 19, 2023
Between
Evelyn Muringi Githogora
Appellant
and
Equity Bank Kenya Limited
Respondent
(Being an appeal from the Ruling and Order of Hon.G. A. Mmasi, SPM dated 11th December 2020 at the Magistrates Court at Milimani, Nairobi in CMCC No. 8604 of 2019)
Ruling
1. In the application dated March 9, 2023, the Appellant seeks review of the order of this court dated January 17, 2023 striking out the appeal. The court stuck out the appeal because the interested parties; Grace Wamuyu Mathenge and Geepak Limited, who were parties to the proceedings in the Subordinate Court were not joined to this appeal. The application is made under order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act (chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya). In addition to and or in the alternative, the Applicant seeks to review the order striking out the appeal and substitute it with an order joining the interested parties to this appeal to enable them participate in the appeal.
2. The application is supported by the appellant’s own affidavit sworn on March 9, 2023 and opposed by the respondent through the replying affidavit of its legal officer, Beatrice Muraguri, sworn on May 9, 2023. Both sides have filed written submissions which I have considered.
3. The facts leading to this appeal are common ground. By a notice of motion dated December 20, 2019, two interested parties; Grace Wamuyu Mathenge and Geepak Limited applied, inter alia, to be joined to the suit as interested parties and that the suit be struck out on the ground that it was res judicata. The appellant opposed the application and by a ruling dated May 29, 2022, the trial magistrate struck out the suit on the ground that it was res judicata.
4. Being aggrieved by the order striking out the suit, the appellant filed the notice of motion dated April 19, 2020 seeking to review the order of May 29, 2022. The Respondent and Interested Parties opposed the application. By the ruling dated December 11, 2020, the trial court dismissed the application thus precipitating this appeal.
5. Both parties have filed extensive written submissions in support of their respective positions on the substance of the appeal. The issue for consideration is whether the Appellant has satisfied the grounds or review. There is no dispute regarding the principles governing the determination of an application for review under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and order 45 rule 1 of theCivil Procedure Rules. An application may seek to review an order on the grounds, inter alia, that there is an error on the face of the record or for sufficient reason.
6. In this case, I accept that there is no error on the face of the record as the order striking out the appeal was grounded on the fact that parties directly affected by the appeal were not joined to this appeal. I also reject the appellant’s contention that merely because the interested parties’ application to join the main suit was rejected is a good reason not to join them to this appeal. The fact is that if the appeal succeeds, it may affect the orders rejecting their application to join them to the suit before the trial court. Further, the interested parties participated in the hearing of the application that gave rise to this appeal.
7. This court has jurisdiction to order joinder of any party to this appeal and as I understand, the appellant seeks to invoke this jurisdiction to enable the court decide the issues in this appeal effectively. Bearing in mind that the court struck out the appeal without hearing from the appellant, it may well have considered the plea to join the interested parties as an alternative to striking out. Further, I do not see any prejudice to the respondent an order for costs would not cure.
8. In the circumstances, I hold that there is sufficient reason to review the order dated January 17, 2023 and set aside the dismissal order. I therefore order joinder of the interested parties in order to allow the appeal to be heard on its merits. Since the appellant failed to join the interested parties, it must bear the cost of inconvenience to the Respondent.
9. I therefore make the following dispositive orders:a.The order dated January 17, 2023 be and is hereby reviewed and the order striking out the appeal is set aside.b.It is hereby ordered that Grace Wamuyu Mathenge and Geepak Limited be and are hereby joined to this appeal as the 2nd and 3rd respondents.c.The 2nd and 3rd respondents shall be served with this order and the record of appeal within 14 days from the date hereof.d.The appellant shall pay the Respondent costs of the proceedings assessed at Kshs. 10,000. 00 within 14 days.e.The matter shall be fixed for mention on June 7, 2023 before the Deputy Registrar for the taking direction on disposal of the appeal.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY 2023. D. S. MAJANJAJUDGEMs Omondi instructed by Gachie Mwanza and Company Advocates for the Appellant.Mr Kamau instructed by Mukiri Global Advocates LLP for the Respondent.