[2017] KESC 25 (KLR)

[2017] KESC 25 (KLR)

The Supreme Court of Kenya held that it lacks jurisdiction to review, set aside, or correct its own judgments, rulings, or orders except as provided under the slip rule, which is limited to correcting clerical errors or errors apparent on the face of the record. Neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court Act...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KESC 25 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Fredrick Otieno Outa; Respondent: Jared Odoyo Okello; Respondent: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission; Respondent: Returning Officer, Nyando Constituency; Respondent: ODM Party
Court
Supreme Court
Court Station
Supreme Court of Kenya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
24 February 2017
Case Number
Petition 6 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; preliminary objection allowed; costs to be borne by the 1st respondent/applicant.
Judges
PM Mwilu, MK Ibrahim, JB Ojwang, SC Wanjala, NS Ndungu, I Lenaola
Legal Topics
Supreme Court Jurisdiction, Review of Judgment, Functus Officio, Slip Rule, Finality of Litigation, Exceptional Circumstances
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Election Petitions Supreme Court Jurisdiction Review of Judgment Functus Officio Slip Rule Finality of Litigation Exceptional Circumstances

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fredrick Otieno Outa

Appellant

Jared Odoyo Okello

Respondent

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission

Respondent

Returning Officer, Nyando Constituency

Respondent

ODM Party

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of Kenya has jurisdiction to review, set aside, or correct its own judgments, rulings, or orders beyond the slip rule.
  2. 2 What is the scope and limitation of the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction under the Constitution, Supreme Court Act, and Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the application for review by the 1st respondent/applicant satisfies the criteria for exceptional circumstances warranting review.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Kenya held that it lacks jurisdiction to review, set aside, or correct its own judgments, rulings, or orders except as provided under the slip rule, which is limited to correcting clerical errors or errors apparent on the face of the record. Neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court Act confers upon the Court the power to sit on appeal over its own decisions or to conduct substantive review. Rule 20(4) of the Supreme Court Rules cannot expand this jurisdiction beyond what is provided in the parent Act. However, the Court retains inherent powers to review its decisions in exceptional circumstances, such as fraud, nullity, mistaken consent, or reliance on a...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; preliminary objection allowed; costs to be borne by the 1st respondent/applicant.

Orders

  • The Preliminary Objection dated 31st October, 2014 is allowed.
  • The Application for Review dated 22nd July, 2014 (as amended) is dismissed.