[2025] KEHC 9931 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9931 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important evidence as required under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The alleged errors raised by the applicant were not self-evident and would require elaborate argument to establish, which is not the standard for review. The court reiterated that the proper avenue for challenging the previous ruling was by way of appeal, not review. Consequently, the application for review and setting aside of the orders issued on 30th January 2025 lacked merit and was dismissed.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9931 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Stanely Masinde Munialo; Respondent: Juliana Auma Comity; Respondent: Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 July 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Reference Application 12 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Reference Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
S Mbungi
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Taxation of Costs, Jurisdiction of High Court, Stay of Execution
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Election Petitions Review of Court Orders Taxation of Costs Jurisdiction of High Court Stay of Execution

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanely Masinde Munialo

Applicant

Juliana Auma Comity

Respondent

Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Reference Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for review and setting aside of the orders issued on 30th January 2025.
  2. 2 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review or remit the bill of costs from the Magistrate's Court election petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important evidence as required under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The alleged errors raised by the applicant were not self-evident and would require elaborate argument to establish, which is not the standard for review. The court reiterated that the proper avenue for challenging the previous ruling was by way of appeal, not review. Consequently, the application for review and setting aside of the orders issued on 30th January 2025 lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 14th April 2025 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
  • Right of appeal within 14 days.