Bulent Gulbahar v Paul Muiyoro T/A Spotted Zebra & 1 other
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed an attempt to reopen a 2016 damages judgment, confirming that review only applies in exceptional cases like fraud — not where a party simply disagrees with how evidence was weighed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Scope of the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction to review its own judgment
The jurisdiction exists but is limited and exceptional, exercisable only in exceptional circumstances such as fraud, nullity, or where the court was misled, as identified by the Supreme Court in Fredrick Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okello
Drawing on Benjoh Amalgamated, Niels Bruel and Cape Holdings, the court held that a court of final resort has residual jurisdiction to reopen decided matters in cases of fraud, bias or other injustice, but this must be invoked with circumspection to preserve finality of litigation while doing justice to parties. Alleged errors in evaluation of evidence fall outside this jurisdiction.
Whether alleged errors apparent on the face of the record regarding special damages justified review
No. Dissatisfaction with the court's analysis and evaluation of evidence is an appeal in disguise, not a ground for review.
The applicant argued the court erred in finding that special damages of Kshs 3,800,000 had been proved, given the 1st respondent's admission that he dismantled his own structures. The court held that such grievances about the assessment of evidence are properly matters of appeal, not of the exceptional residual review jurisdiction; entertaining them would create an illegitimate tier of appeals.
Legal principles established
#- The Court of Appeal's residual jurisdiction to review its own decisions is exceptional and is exercised sparingly, with circumspection, only in cases of fraud, bias or other injustice
- Allegations that a court misapprehended the law or misapprehended evidence are grounds of appeal, not grounds for invoking the Court of Appeal's exceptional residual review jurisdiction
- An invitation to the Court of Appeal to reconsider its evaluation of the evidence is an appeal disguised as an application for review and will be rejected
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the notice of motion dated 24th October 2018 seeking review, setting aside and/or correction of the judgment delivered on 25th November 2016
- 2.No orders as to costs
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal
- Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules, Sections 3(2) and 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (residual review jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bulent Gulbahar v Paul Muiyoro T/A Spotted Zebra & 1 other", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2014 (Review Application dated 24th October 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/701/eng@2026-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.