Coffee Board of Kenya v Kiambu County Council & another
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to remove a deceased man's widow from an appeal, ruling that challenges to a judgment belong in the appeal itself, not review applications.
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 applicant has made a case to warrant striking out of her name from the record of appeal as prayed
- 2.Whether her application comes too late in the day
- 3.What orders ought to be made in determination of the motion, including orders as to costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court of Appeal may review its own decision substituting a legal representative
The court has inherent jurisdiction under rule 1(2) to review its own decisions, but the applicant failed to demonstrate fraud, bias or other injustice, or abuse of process.
Relying on Manchester Outfitters (SC) and Benjoh Amalgamated, the court affirmed that although no constitutional or statutory provision expressly confers review jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal, inherent jurisdiction exists. It is invoked with circumspection, only in cases of fraud, bias or other injustice, balancing finality against doing justice. The applicant proved none of these.
Whether the applicant's name should be struck out because the deceased was sued in an official capacity as Chairman of Kiambu Coffee Cess
No case for striking out was made; the question whether the estate is liable under the decree is for the bench hearing the appeal, not a review application.
The judgment and decree were passed during the deceased's lifetime and the appeal was preferred before his demise, so the estate requires representation if it wishes to participate. Striking out the applicant's name would effectively summarily allow the appeal for the estate on a motion, which the review forum cannot do; discharging the estate is the business of the appeal bench.
Whether the application was brought too late
The court declined to make a finding, holding that no useful purpose would be served by deciding the timeliness issue.
Having found the application fails on the merits, the court considered a determination on delay unnecessary and expressed no view on whether the motion offended rules 55 and 84 (now 57 and 86) of the Court of Appeal Rules or the substitution timeline.
Legal principles established
#- The Court of Appeal has inherent jurisdiction under rule 1(2) of its Rules to review its own decisions, but only where fraud, bias or other injustice is demonstrated.
- A legal representative substituted into an appeal cannot have her name struck out on a review application where the estate's challenge to the decree properly falls for determination in the appeal itself.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated November 11, 2021 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal (single judge, Martha Koome, JA)
- Civil Appeal No. 232 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction under rule 1(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules to review its own decisions, as recognised in Manchester Outfitters (Supreme Court)
Relief refused
#Review, vacation and/or setting aside of the order of July 18, 2019 impleading the applicant to the appeal
No fraud, bias or other injustice demonstrated; striking out her name would amount to summarily allowing the appeal for the estate
Striking out of the applicant's name from the proceedings
The estate's challenge to the judgment belongs to the appeal hearing, not a review application
Costs borne by the respondents in any event
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents instead
Costs
Application dismissed with costs 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.
While this court has inherent jurisdiction under rule 1(2) of its Rules to review its own decisions, the applicant has not demonstrated any fraud, bias or other injustice occasioned by the order to substitute her for the deceased in the appeal.
To grant her application and strike out her name from the record of appeal this early in the day would be tantamount to summarily allowing the appeal in favour of the deceased’s estate on the basis of the motion before us.
In conclusion, the applicant’s notice of motion dated November 11, 2021 fails and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Coffee Board of Kenya v Kiambu County Council & another", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal (Application) 232 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/1398/eng@2022-12-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.