Pressmaster Limited v Elego
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to reduce a Kshs. 64.8 million security deposit, ruling that parties who ignore court orders cannot ask the same court for favours.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court has jurisdiction, under Rule 57 of the Court of Appeal Rules or its inherent/residual jurisdiction, to review its order of 23rd April 2021 requiring security of Kshs. 64,859,427 as a condition for stay of execution
- 2.Whether the applicant, on the facts, deserves the exercise of the Court's discretion to review the security order
Key legal issues
#Scope of Rule 57 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Rule 57 does not apply to an order for security for a specific amount within a specified time; it covers only extension of time and specification of dates.
The Court read Rule 57(1)(a) and (b) and Rule 57(2) and held that the rule limits variation or rescission to two situations: orders extending time and orders permitting acts without specifying a date where diligence was lacking. The security order required a specific amount within a specified time, so varying the amount falls outside the rule.
Exercise of the Court's inherent/residual jurisdiction under Section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
The residual jurisdiction to review the Court's own orders is exercised sparingly, in exceptional circumstances, and not for a party with unclean hands or lacking diligence.
Following Standard Chartered Financial Services v Manchester Outfitters, the Court held that residual jurisdiction under Section 3A may reopen a concluded matter only where injustice outweighs finality. The applicant failed to comply with the security order for almost a year, did not explain why it withheld the ELRC ruling of 25th September 2020 from the Court, and showed no prejudice.
Legal principles established
#- Rule 57 of the Court of Appeal Rules permits variation or rescission of an order made by the Court only where the order relates to extension of time or to specification of the date by which an act is to be done; it does not cover variation of the amount of security ordered.
- The Court's residual jurisdiction under Section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to review its own orders is exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where the need to obviate injustice outweighs the principle of finality in litigation.
- A party seeking the exercise of the Court's inherent discretion must come with clean hands and demonstrate diligence.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated 7th May 2021 seeking review of the security order is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 159 and 259 of the Constitution and Sections 3 and 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (inherent/residual jurisdiction); Rule 57 of the Court of Appeal Rules considered
Relief refused
#Review downwards of the security deposit from Kshs. 64,859,427 to Kshs. 16,424,119.28
The order sought to be reviewed does not fall within Rule 57; no exceptional circumstances justify exercise of residual jurisdiction; applicant came with unclean hands and was not diligent
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs (costs awarded to the respondents).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
A reading of Rule 57 shows that it gives the Court discretion to vary or rescind an order that was made by the Court only in two specific situations.
However, that residual jurisdiction will only be exercised in exceptional situations where the need to obviate injustice outweigh the principle of finality in litigation.
It is apparent that the applicant was not diligent and is not deserving of the exercise of this Court’s discretion.
For these reason, we find no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent dating of the applicant's motion
Inconsistent award figures stated for the ELRC judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pressmaster Limited v Elego", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application 49 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/571/eng@2022-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.