[2025] KEHC 7534 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7534 (KLR)

The court determined that it had been misled by counsel into delivering a ruling on an application for leave to apply for judicial review, despite leave having already been granted by a previous judge. Recognizing that the error was not clerical and thus not correctable under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7534 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Francis Kirimu M’ikunyua; Applicant: Peter Kioko Ndiku; Respondent: Registrar of Societies; Interested Party: Margaret Njeri Wanyoike; Interested Party: Joyce Nyakeri; Interested Party: Michael Ngugi Karanja; Interested Party: James Njogu; Interested Party: Chalres Mwangi Ngumi; Interested Party: Peter Ndung’u Mutiga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Application E063 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Court's Own Motion to Vacate Erroneous Ruling
Outcome
Ruling delivered on 27th May 2025 vacated and set aside; matter to proceed to hearing of substantive motion.
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Inherent Powers of Court, Vacation of Orders, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Inherent Powers of Court Vacation of Orders Abuse of Court Process

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Kirimu M’ikunyua

Applicant

Peter Kioko Ndiku

Applicant

Registrar of Societies

Respondent

Margaret Njeri Wanyoike

Interested Party

Joyce Nyakeri

Interested Party

Michael Ngugi Karanja

Interested Party

James Njogu

Interested Party

Chalres Mwangi Ngumi

Interested Party

Peter Ndung’u Mutiga

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Court's Own Motion to Vacate Erroneous Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the court can vacate its own ruling delivered in error due to misleading submissions by counsel.
  2. 2 Whether the inherent powers under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act permit the court to set aside a ruling not correctable under section 99.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that it had been misled by counsel into delivering a ruling on an application for leave to apply for judicial review, despite leave having already been granted by a previous judge. Recognizing that the error was not clerical and thus not correctable under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court invoked its inherent powers under section 3A to vacate the erroneous ruling. The court found that allowing the ruling to stand would perpetuate an injustice and amount to an abuse of the court process. Accordingly, the court set aside and expunged the ruling delivered on 27th May 2025 and directed the parties to appear for directions on the substantive motion.

Court Disposition

Ruling delivered on 27th May 2025 vacated and set aside; matter to proceed to hearing of substantive motion.

Orders

  • The ruling delivered on 27th May 2025 is vacated, set aside, and expunged from the court record.
  • Deputy Registrar to notify parties' counsel to appear in court on 10th June 2025 for directions on delivery of judgment on the substantive notice of motion dated 26th March 2024.