https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7208

Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd v Opala (Civil Appeal E532 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 7208 (KLR) (Civ) (22 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7208 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Civil Appeal E532 of 2021 AN Ongeri, J May 22, 2026 Between Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd Appellant and Ibrahim Opala Respondent Ruling 1.The Respondent filed an Application dated 20th June 2025 seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 2nd July 2024. 2.The Application is based on the ground that there is a mistake/error apparent on the face. 3.That in the judgment dated 2nd July 2024, the court failed to pronounce itself on the costs and interest in the primary suit as well as the accrued interest deposited in the joint interest earning account. 4.The parties filed written submissions as follows: The respondent submitted that they filed a Notice of Motion filed on 20th June 2025 seeking review of the High Court’s judgment delivered on 2nd July 2024. 5.The background is that an appeal and cross-appeal arose from a trial court judgment, and prior to the appeal, the parties had deposited the decretal sum of Kshs. 4,261,728.50 into a joint interest‑earning fixed deposit account. 6.When the High Court partially allowed the appeal by reducing the general damages from Kshs. 2,200,000 to Kshs. 2,000,000 and dismissed the cross‑appeal with costs assessed at Kshs. 30,000, the parties could not agree on the implementation of the judgment. 7.The disagreement centres on whether the respondent is entitled to the costs and interest awarded by the trial court and the accrued interest from the fixed deposit account, as the appellate court’s judgment did not expressly address these issues. 8.The respondent argues that the failure to pronounce on costs and interest from the primary suit, and on the money in the joint account, constitutes an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, which can be corrected under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 9.The respondent contends that because the appellate court only varied trial court’s judgment, including costs and interest, remains undisturbed. 10.On the appellant’s objection that there was unreasonable delay, the respondent explains that the delay was caused by the closure of the CTS portal after judgment and subsequent correspondence with the registry, eventually requiring the Deputy Registrar’s intervention to reopen the docket. 11.The respondent also clarifies that the trial court’s judgment without setting it aside, the remainder of the it is not challenging the costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant, but rather seeks directions on the trial court’s costs and interest and the accrued bank interest. 12.Citing the case of Chege & Ano v Beth Mobility LLP & 2 Others, the respondent maintains that the error is self‑evident and does not require elaborate argument, and therefore prays that the court exercise its discretionary power to allow the review application with costs. 13.The appellant’s submissions oppose the respondent’s notice of motion dated 20 June 2025, which is based on two main grounds, an alleged mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and the court’s failure to address interest on the primary suit and accrued interest held in a joint interest-earning account. 14.The appellant opposes the motion on three grounds: that the application lacks merit and is an abuse of court process, that there has been unreasonable delay in bringing the application, and that the appellate court already pronounced itself on the issue of costs. 15.On the law, the appellant argues that interest on general damages accrues from the date of judgment, which in this case was 2 July 2024, relying on authorities such as Shariff Salim & Another v Malundu Kikava and South Nyanza Sugar Company Ltd v Oreko. 16.The decretal sum was held in a joint account and released immediately after judgment, so the issue of interest on the primary suit does not arise. 17.The appellate court exercised its discretion judiciously under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act by ordering the respondent to pay only nominal costs of Kshs. 30,000, and such discretion should not be overturned. 18.Any accrued interest on money held in an escrow account is subject to court directions, which in this appeal is the date of judgment. 19.The respondent filed the application one year after the judgment, on 17 July 2025, without providing any explanation for the delay. 20.Consequently, the appellant urges the court to dismiss the motion with costs. 21.The issues for determination in this review application are as follows;i.Whether there exists an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record concerning the High Court’s silence on the interest and costs originally awarded by the trial court,ii.How the accrued interest in the joint escrow account should be distributed, andiii.Whether the respondent’s application for review was brought without unreasonable delay. 22.Under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, a court may review its judgment if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, meaning an omission or error that is self-evident and does not require a long-drawn process of reasoning to establish. 23.A review is permissible where the court has overlooked a glaring matter or failed to grant a consequential relief that flows naturally from the decision. 24.When an appellate court partially allows an appeal by merely reducing the quantum of damages, the remaining intact portions of the trial court's judgment, including the original orders on costs and interest, remain undisturbed and legally binding unless specifically set aside or varied by the appellate judge. 25.The High Court's silence on these components in its judgment dated 2nd July 2024 constitutes an unintended omission and an error apparent on the face of the record. 26.Regarding the interest earned on the joint account, funds deposited in a joint interest-earning account pending an appeal accrue interest for the benefit of the ultimate successful party in proportion to their final success. 27.Therefore, the respondent is fully entitled to the interest generated by the principal sum of the varied judgment up to the date of release. 28.On the issue of delay, the respondent’s explanation pointing to the technical closure of the Judiciary's Case Tracking System (CTS) portal and the subsequent administrative interventions by the Deputy Registrar constitutes a reasonable and sufficient cause, aligning with the overriding objectives of oxygen principles under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act to achieve substantive justice without undue technical hitches. 29.Consequently, the Appellant's grounds opposing the application are unmeritorious, and the original appeal having already been determined with a mere variation of quantum, this subsequent challenge to the consequential components is untenable. 30.I allow the Respondent’s Notice of Motion dated 20th June 2025 and orders that the trial court's orders on interest and costs stand as modified by the reduced principal sum of two million shillings, with the accrued interest in the joint account to be shared pro-rata based on the final varied decretal sum. 31.Each party to pay their own costs of the appeal. 32.Orders to issue accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2026............................A. N. ONGERIJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr Ojuok holding brief for Mr Modi for the ApplicantNo appearance for the RespondentChrispine – Court Assistant