[2019] KECA 379 (KLR)

[2019] KECA 379 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that its residual jurisdiction to review its own decisions is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where a miscarriage of justice has occurred, public confidence in the administration of justice is eroded, and no appeal lies against the decision. The applicants failed to demonstrate any such exceptional circumstances or errors resulting in miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the variation of the initial contract was validly established through the parties' conduct and correspondence, and that the applicants' arguments amounted to a mere disagreement with the judgment rather than proof of injustice. The Court also held that the...

Citation
[2019] KECA 379 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kamau James Gitutho Njendu t/a Gitutho Associates; Applicant: Harry Njoroge Gakuya t/a Gakuya & Associates; Applicant: Maxad Consulting Engineers Ltd; Applicant: Primeconsult Engineers Limited; Respondent: Multiple ICD (K) Limited; Respondent: Multiple Hauliers (E.A) Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
21 August 2019
Case Number
Civil Application 2 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
ARM Visram, J Karanja, FI Koome
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Residual Jurisdiction, Variation of Contract, Professional Fees, Privity of Contract
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Review of Judgment Residual Jurisdiction Variation of Contract Professional Fees Privity of Contract

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kamau James Gitutho Njendu t/a Gitutho Associates

Applicant

Harry Njoroge Gakuya t/a Gakuya & Associates

Applicant

Maxad Consulting Engineers Ltd

Applicant

Primeconsult Engineers Limited

Applicant

Multiple ICD (K) Limited

Respondent

Multiple Hauliers (E.A) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should exercise its residual jurisdiction to review, vary, or set aside its own judgment in Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2017.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants demonstrated exceptional circumstances or errors resulting in miscarriage of justice to warrant review.
  3. 3 Whether the variation of the initial contract was valid and binding on the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that its residual jurisdiction to review its own decisions is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where a miscarriage of justice has occurred, public confidence in the administration of justice is eroded, and no appeal lies against the decision. The applicants failed to demonstrate any such exceptional circumstances or errors resulting in miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the variation of the initial contract was validly established through the parties' conduct and correspondence, and that the applicants' arguments amounted to a mere disagreement with the judgment rather than proof of injustice. The Court also held that the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs to the respondents.