Automated Summary
Key Facts
The applicants, Thomas Owen Ondiek and Edah Amakoben Ingutia, were terminated by the National Bank of Kenya after allegations of money laundering and a subsequent office search by the Central Bank of Kenya. They initially succeeded in the High Court in challenging their termination (HCCC No. 115 of 1999), but the Court of Appeal remitted the case for a valid judgment. Later, they filed a second suit (HCCC No. 179 of 1999) seeking damages for illegal search, defamation, and unpaid loans, which was dismissed as res judicata. The applicants then repeatedly sought to review or correct prior rulings (CA No. 23 of 2016, CA No. 182 of 2011, and others), all of which were dismissed for lacking merit. The current application was again dismissed as res judicata and an abuse of court process.
Issues
- The court assessed whether there were exceptional circumstances, such as fraud, bias, or injustice, warranting the exercise of its residual jurisdiction to reopen and review its previous decisions.
- The court determined whether the applicants' current application for review was barred by res judicata, as the issues had been previously raised and decided in earlier applications between the same parties.
Holdings
- The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to review a High Court judgment after it has been appealed and determined, as in the case of the May 2, 2011 judgment.
- The applicants' repeated attempts to review prior rulings (October 29, 2015 and October 5, 2017) are found to lack merit and special circumstances justifying the court's residual jurisdiction.
- The application is dismissed as res judicata and a blatant abuse of the court process, with the court emphasizing that the issues raised were previously determined in prior applications.
Remedies
Dismissed with costs
Legal Principles
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for review on the grounds of res judicata, determining that the issues raised had already been adjudicated in prior applications between the same parties. The court emphasized that res judicata bars re-litigation of matters already decided by a competent court.
Precedent Name
- IEBC v. Maina Kiai & 5 others
- Benjoh Amalgamated & Another v. Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
Cited Statute
Civil Procedure Act
Judge Name
- K M'Inoti
- S Ole Kantai
- F Tuinyott
Passage Text
- we cannot entertain the same because it is res judicata and does not disclose even a scintilla of special circumstances that would justify invoking the court's residual jurisdiction. The application has absolutely no merit and the same is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
- The jurisprudence that emerges from the case-law from the aforementioned jurisdictions shows that where the Court is of final resort... principles to be had regard to are, on the one hand, the finality principle that hinges on public interest and the need to have conclusiveness to litigation and on the other hand, the justice principle that is pegged on the need to do justice to the parties
- a short narration of the background to this application will vividly show that not only is the current application res judicata, but it is also blatant abuse of the process of the court.