[2025] KEHC 4351 (KLR)
The court found that there were two rulings—dated 24th March 2021 and 12th May 2022—both concerning the same application (Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2020). Since the application had already been determined by the earlier ruling, the subsequent ruling was rendered without a valid basis and constituted an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 4351 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Muema Kitulu t/a Muema Kitulu & Company Advocates; Respondent: John Bosco Ngeta Maundu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 820 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Prior Ruling
- Outcome
- application for review allowed; impugned ruling set aside; matter transferred for further directions
- Judges
- AC Mrima
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Error on Face of Record, Advocate Client Bill of Costs
- 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
Muema Kitulu t/a Muema Kitulu & Company Advocates
Applicant
John Bosco Ngeta Maundu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Prior Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ruling dated 12th May 2022 should be reviewed and set aside due to an apparent error on the face of the record.
- 2 Whether the application dated 9th December 2020 had already been determined, rendering the subsequent ruling a nullity.
- 3 Whether the matter should be transferred to the Civil Division for further directions on the pending application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there were two rulings—dated 24th March 2021 and 12th May 2022—both concerning the same application (Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2020). Since the application had already been determined by the earlier ruling, the subsequent ruling was rendered without a valid basis and constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that this error warranted review and setting aside of the latter ruling. The court further directed that the matter, being an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs, should be dealt with before the Civil Division, and fixed the matter for directions regarding the pending Chamber Summons dated 23rd June 2021.
Court Disposition
application for review allowed; impugned ruling set aside; matter transferred for further directions
Orders
- The ruling dated 12th May 2022 is hereby set aside.
- This matter shall be fixed for directions on 29th April 2025 before the Presiding Judge of the Civil Division in respect of the Chamber Summons dated 23rd June 2021.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Kitulu t/a Muema Kitulu & Company Advocates v Maundu (Miscellaneous Civil Application 820 of 2013) [2025] KEHC 4351 (KLR) (Civ) (3 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 4351 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Miscellaneous Civil Application 820 of 2013
AC Mrima, J
April 3, 2025
Between
Muema Kitulu t/a Muema Kitulu & Company Advocates
Applicant
and
John Bosco Ngeta Maundu
Respondent
Ruling
1. This is a ruling on the application by way of a Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2024 for review of the ruling of this Court dated 12th May 2022 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned ruling’] which was delivered by my sister Hon. Lady Justice D.O. Chepkwony.
2. The main reason for seeking review as can be drawn from the grounds and Affidavit in support of the application is that the impugned ruling was on an application by way of a Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2020 which application had already been determined by the late Hon. Lady Justice B. Thuranira Jaden [May her soul rest in peace] vide a ruling delivered on 24th March 2021.
3. The Applicant averred that there was, therefore, an apparent error on the face of the record which needed to be cured by allowing the review application. To the Applicant, the application on which a ruling was yet to be rendered was the Notice of Motion dated 23rd June 2021 which is still pending before Court.
4. The Respondent did not take part in the hearing of the application despite service.
5. The Applicant filed written submission dated 24th January 2025 wherein he cited several decisions on the legal prerequisites to determining review applications. He submitted that the application met the criteria set under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules to warrant grant of the prayers sought.
6. This Court has had the liberty of going through the application, the submissions and the record. It is true there are two rulings dated 24th March 2021 and 12th May 2022 respectively. The said two rulings are on the same application which is a Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2020. Obviously, the latter ruling ought not to have been rendered since there was no substratum upon which the same would be founded on as the Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2020 had been long determined. The instant application is, hence, merited. Further, since this matter relates to an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs, it will, henceforth, be dealt with before the Civil Division.
7. In the end, the following orders do hereby issue: -a.The Ruling dated 12th May 2022 is hereby set-aside.b.This matter shall be fixed for directions on 29th April 2025 before the Presiding Judge of the Civil Division in respect of the Chamber Summons dated 23rd June 2021. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025. A. C. MRIMAJUDGERuling virtually delivered in the presence of:Mr. Kitulu, Learned Counsel for the Applicant.Mr. Musungu, Learned Counsel for the Respondent.Michael/Amina – Court Assistants.