[2008] KECA 123 (KLR)

[2008] KECA 123 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that its judgment of 3rd April, 1984 in Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1983 did not finally determine the substantive dispute between James Mwashori Mwakio and Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd. but merely remitted the matter to the High Court for hearing and determination on its merits. The applicant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KECA 123 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: James Mwashori Mwakio; Respondent: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd.
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 283 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Reverse High Court Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
AM Githinji, J Wakiaga
Legal Topics
Functus Officio, Enforcement of Judgments, Appellate Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Functus Officio Enforcement of Judgments Appellate Jurisdiction

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

James Mwashori Mwakio

Applicant

Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Reverse High Court Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal judgment of 3rd April, 1984 finally determined the dispute in favour of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal is functus officio regarding the construction or enforcement of its 1984 judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to further orders for enforcement against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that its judgment of 3rd April, 1984 in Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1983 did not finally determine the substantive dispute between James Mwashori Mwakio and Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd. but merely remitted the matter to the High Court for hearing and determination on its merits. The applicant's repeated assertions that the 1984 judgment conclusively resolved the dispute in his favour were found to be wholly erroneous. The court reaffirmed that it is functus officio regarding the construction or enforcement of its 1984 judgment, having already addressed and dismissed similar applications on multiple prior occasions. The applicant's grievances, while noted, could not...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.