Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case originated from a dispute regarding the division of three constituencies in Garissa County. The Supreme Court resolved the matter on June 16, 2023. The applicant, a Member of Parliament from Balambala Constituency, sought to review the judgment, claiming it was based on misrepresentation of geographical locations. Respondents, including other MPs and the Cabinet Secretary, opposed the review, arguing it was an attempt to relitigate and that the applicant failed to meet the required threshold for review under the Supreme Court Act.
Issues
Under what circumstances would the Supreme Court review its own decisions?
Holdings
- The applicant's introduction of a new cause of action in Ground 3 of the motion was explicitly rejected, as review cannot issue under such circumstances. The court emphasized that review is not a tool for re-opening matters after a final judgment.
- The court determined that the applicant's review application was an attempt to re-litigate the matter and disguise an appeal. The application was deemed an abuse of process and lacked jurisdiction as the court had already rendered a final judgment.
- The court ordered the dismissal of the notice of motion and directed the applicant to bear the costs of the 5th and 8th respondents, as well as the appellant's costs, in line with the principle that costs follow the event.
- The Supreme Court held that it would only review its own decisions in exceptional circumstances, such as if obtained by fraud or deceit, where the court was not competent, where the court was misled into entering a consent, or based on a repealed statute or concealed provision. The applicant failed to demonstrate these conditions, leading to the dismissal of the review application.
Remedies
- The court dismissed the applicant's motion for review of the Supreme Court's judgment, determining that the application did not meet the required threshold for review under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act. The court found no exceptional circumstances such as fraud, lack of competence, or misrepresentation that would justify the review.
- The applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the motion, including the costs of the 5th and 8th respondents, as the application was deemed to follow the event in favor of the respondents. The court held that the applicant's failure to meet the review criteria necessitated this cost allocation.
Legal Principles
- The Supreme Court outlined that it may review its own judgments, rulings, or orders in exceptional circumstances such as when obtained by fraud or deceit, where the court was not competent, misled into consent, or based on a repealed statute. The court dismissed the application for review as the applicant failed to demonstrate these conditions.
- The court reiterated the principle of res judicata, stating that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain second appeals over its own judgments. Litigation must conclude with finality unless reviewed under exceptional circumstances.
Precedent Name
- Outa v Okello et al
- Rai v Rai Estate et al
Cited Statute
- Supreme Court Rules
- Supreme Court Act
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Judge Name
- W. Ouko
- M.K. Ibrahim
- Njoki Ndungu
- I. Lenaola
- S.C. Wanjala
Passage Text
- The applicant had not demonstrated how the judgment delivered on June 16, 2023 that he sought to have impugned met the exceptional circumstances above. Ground 3 of the motion introduced a new cause of action. Review could never issue in such circumstances. No other ground reproduced above also meets the Outa threshold.
- 1. As a general rule, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to sit on appeal over its own decisions, nor review its own decisions, other than in the manner contemplated by section 21(4) of the . However, in exercise of its inherent powers, the court, may upon application by a party or on its own motion, review, any of its judgments, rulings, or orders, in exceptional circumstances, so as to meet the ends of justice. The exceptional circumstances were limited to instances where:
- 1. the judgment, ruling, or order was obtained, by fraud or deceit; 2. the judgment, ruling, or order was a nullity, such as, when the court itself was not competent; 3. the court was misled into giving judgment, ruling, or order, under a mistaken belief that the parties had consented thereto; 4. the judgment or ruling, was rendered, on the basis of a repealed law, or as a result of, a deliberately concealed statutory provision.