[1998] KEHC 180 (KLR)
The court held that it was functus officio after issuing the injunction order and that entertaining the application for review would amount to sitting on appeal of its own decision. The judge declined to address the merits of the review application, finding that to do so would be improper and could result in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] KEHC 180 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Shabana Supermarket Ltd; Defendant: Gilad - All Finance Ltd & 3 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 886 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Injunction Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Injunctions, Functus Officio
- 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
Shabana Supermarket Ltd
Plaintiff
Gilad - All Finance Ltd & 3 Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Injunction Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can review its own injunction order under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 44 Rules 1 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the court is functus officio after issuing the injunction order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it was functus officio after issuing the injunction order and that entertaining the application for review would amount to sitting on appeal of its own decision. The judge declined to address the merits of the review application, finding that to do so would be improper and could result in prejudice. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
9 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 886 OF 1998
SHABANA SUPERMARKET LTD......................................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS GILAD - ALL FINANCE LTD & 3 OTHERS.....................................................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This is an application for review brought by the first defendant under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 44 Rules 1 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application is opposed and both learned counsel have addressed the court on the application. On 8th may, 1998 this court gave an injunction order in favour of the plaintiff against all the defendants. It is that order that the 1st defendant has asked the court to review.
I appreciate and understand the thrust of the submissions of Mr Mutuli, the learned counsel for the first defendant/applicant. He has taken the court through the relevant authorities to assist the court in this matter. My view however is that, if I were to revisit the order I made after listening to the submissions in the injunction application, it would appear as if I am sitting on appeal of my own order. I believe on the facts of the case I am functus officio and do not deem it necessary to address the merits of the application before me otherwise prejudice may result.
Accordingly the application is dismissed with costs. Order accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 30th day of July, 1998
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE