Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E042 of 2024
Judge
E Asati
The court dismissed an unopposed application to review its earlier ruling, finding no error apparent on the face of the record and no basis for review.
Watamu Men Fridays Limited v Attorney General & 4 others [2025] KEELC 4786 (KLR)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment & Land Case 104 of 2019
Judge
FM Njoroge
The court held that the mere filing of a notice of appeal does not preclude the High Court from entertaining an application for review, as an appeal is only deemed to be instituted upon filing the record of appeal, payment of requisite fees, and compliance with procedural rules. In this case, since only a notice of appeal had been filed and no further steps taken, the court retained jurisdiction to hear the review application. However, the applicant failed to demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record, as the court had already considered the substance of the appellate orders in i…
Mwananchi Credit Limited v Okuta & another [2025] KEHC 8482 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Case E183 of 2024
Judge
A Mabeya
High Court allowed an appeal against a ruling that reviewed a judgment and granted reliefs not sought, holding the liability issue was for appeal, not review.
Maubi v Rural Electrification and Renewable Energy Corporation (REREC) [2025] KEELRC 1737 (KLR)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Cause E672 of 2022
Judge
SC Rutto
The court reviewed its earlier judgment on unfair termination after finding an error in how compensatory damages were calculated from the claimant’s gross salary.
The court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record as required under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The alleged errors raised by the Applicant, including the claim of absolute privilege and failure to prove defamation, were not self-evident and would require elaborate arguments and re-examination of evidence, which is not the purpose of a review application. The court emphasized that review is not an avenue to re-argue a case or sit on appeal over its own or a concurrent court's decision. The…
The court found that the appellant failed to substantiate the claim that documents supporting special damages were produced and returned, as there was no affidavit or evidence to support this assertion. The court held that the alleged error was not apparent on the face of the record and that the grounds for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules were not met. The trial court was not bereft of jurisdiction to consider the review application, but the appellant did not establish any error or sufficient reason to warrant review. Consequently,…