Rinkanya v M'Rinkanya (Civil Appeal (Application) 286 of 2019) [2025] KECA 2116 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out a repeat application for identical orders already refused, warning litigants cannot relitigate dismissed motions.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a fresh Motion seeking the same or substantially similar orders as a previously dismissed application is competent
- 2.Whether the Motion dated 20th June, 2025 seeking leave to amend the memorandum of appeal and to file a supplementary record of appeal was an abuse of the process of the Court
Key legal issues
#Whether a second application seeking the same orders as a dismissed application is an abuse of process
Yes. A fresh motion mirroring relief already refused in a ruling of the Court is an abuse of the process of the Court and must be struck out.
The applicant had sought identical relief - substitution of the respondent as legal representative of the deceased's estate - in a Motion dated 2nd May, 2024, which W. Karanja, JA dismissed on 14th February, 2025. The Court held that dissatisfaction with that ruling must be pursued through the prescribed procedure, not by re-litigating the same prayers before the same Court. The motion was struck out with no order on costs.
Legal principles established
#- A party who is dissatisfied with a ruling of the Court must pursue the procedure for challenging that outcome; a litigant may not return to the same Court seeking identical or similar orders previously refused, as such a motion is an abuse of process.
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 20th June, 2025 is struck out
- 2.No order on costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over interlocutory applications in a pending appeal
Relief refused
#Leave to amend the memorandum of appeal to reflect Japhet Kirimi M'Rinkanya as the true respondent as legal representative of the estate of Gladys Kathuni M'Rinkanya (deceased)
The applicant sought the same relief as in the Motion dated 2nd May, 2024 which was dismissed by W. Karanja, JA on 14th February, 2025; the proper course on dissatisfaction is an appeal or review, not a fresh application
Leave to file a supplementary record of appeal and deeming of the amended and supplementary records as duly filed
Ancillary to the struck-out application for the same relief previously refused
Costs
No order on costs - 'the same is hereby struck out with no order on costs'
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.
If the applicant was dissatisfied with the outcome of that ruling there is a procedure for dealing with such dissatisfaction. It is not open to him to come back to Court praying for similar orders.
The Motion before me is an abuse of the process of the Court and the same is hereby struck out with no order on costs.
I consider that what the applicant is asking me to do is exactly what he asked for in the application which was dismissed.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is a short ex tempore ruling by a single Judge of Appeal, not a full-bench appellate judgment; no coram beyond S. ole Kantai, JA appears.
The dismissed prior application is described as having been dismissed for reasons 'contained in the ruling' but that ruling's content is not reproduced in this judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rinkanya v M'Rinkanya (Civil Appeal (Application) 286 of 2019) [2025] KECA 2116 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal No. 286 of 2019 (Motion dated 20th June, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2116/eng@2025-11-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.