https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8346
Although the earlier ruling contained an apparent error in stating that no prayer sought to set aside the statutory demand notice, review was still unavailable because the statutory demand had already been withdrawn and therefore there was nothing left to set aside. No useful purpose would be served by varying the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 8346 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ndovu Rock Limited; Respondent: James Mutele Weindaba
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Insolvency Notice E138 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Insolvency Objection to Statutory Liquidation Notice; Application for Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review
- Outcome
- Notice of Motion dated 3 June 2025 dismissed; each party to bear its own costs.
- Judges
- ["MO Ado"]
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment/ruling, Statutory Demand Notice, Apparent Error on the Face of the Record, Withdrawal of Statutory Demand, Orders in Vain
- 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
Ndovu Rock Limited
Applicant
James Mutele Weindaba
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Objection to Statutory Liquidation Notice; Application for Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an apparent error in the earlier ruling regarding the existence of a prayer to set aside the statutory demand notice
- 2 Whether the alleged error justified review under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 3 Whether any effective relief could still be granted after withdrawal of the statutory demand notice
Ratio Decidendi
Although the earlier ruling contained an apparent error in stating that no prayer sought to set aside the statutory demand notice, review was still unavailable because the statutory demand had already been withdrawn and therefore there was nothing left to set aside. No useful purpose would be served by varying the orders, and the prior finding that the application was incompetent and misconceived remained decisive.
Court Disposition
Notice of Motion dated 3 June 2025 dismissed; each party to bear its own costs.
Orders
- Application for review dismissed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Ndovu Rock Ltd v Weindaba (Insolvency Notice E138 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8346 (KLR) (Commercial & Admiralty) (11 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8346 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Commercial and Admiralty Insolvency Notice E138 of 2024 MO Ado, J June 11, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF OBJECTION TO A STATUTORY LIQUIDATION NOTICE ISSUED BY JAMES MUTELE WEINDABA TO NDOVU ROCK LIMITED Between Ndovu Rock Limited Applicant and James Mutele Weindaba Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant seeks review of the ruling delivered on 26th March 2025 on the ground that the court erroneously stated that the Applicant had not sought an order setting aside the statutory demand notice dated 13th June 2024. 2.The Applicant points out that Prayer 4 of the Application dated 3rd July 2024 expressly sought an order setting aside the statutory demand notice. The Respondent opposes the application and states that, in any event, the statutory demand was withdrawn by a letter dated 3rd December 2024. 3.The jurisdiction of the court under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is limited to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record or for other sufficient reason. Review is not an appeal through the back door. 4.I have perused the Application dated 3rd July 2024, and I agree with the Applicant that there was indeed a prayer seeking to set aside the statutory demand notice. To that extent, the court fell into error in stating that no such prayer had been sought. 5.That finding alone, however, does not entitle the Applicant to the orders sought. The Respondent has exhibited a letter dated 3rd December 2024 withdrawing the statutory demand notice, and the Applicant has not disputed that fact. 6.Once the statutory demand was withdrawn, there was nothing left to set aside. Courts do not issue orders in vain. Further, the court had also found the earlier application incompetent and misconceived. 7.In the circumstances, although there was an apparent error in the ruling of 26th March 2025, no useful purpose would be served by reviewing or varying the orders of the court. 8.The Notice of Motion dated 3rd June 2025 is therefore dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs. 9.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2026HON. MR. JUSTICE MOSES ADOJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURTIn the Presence of:Moses C/AShimoli………………for the ApplicantKering…………for the Respondent