1.Gladys Wairimu Mbugua has filed a chamber summons dated September 1, 2022 seeking to review the order of this court issued by the ruling of July 6, 2022.
2.Application for revision is based on order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules (hereinafter Procedure Rules). Gladys’ application is founded on her contention that the impugned ruling was made on some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
4.From the above decision it becomes apparent the error, the subject of order 45 of the rules, is an error that ought to be on the face of the record. It should not be an erroneous decision. The gist of the application before court is that the court determined Gladys had not filed an appearance to a citation served upon her. Gladys contends that she had filed her appearance.
5.That argument by Gladys is erroneous and does not represent the ruling of July 6, 2022. To demonstrate the error Gladys makes, I will reproduce the relevant part of that Ruling as follows:-
6.Rule 21(5) of the Probate and Administration Rules (hereinafter Probate Rules) requires one who is cited to file an appearance within 15 days of service of the citation. The appearance filed as required under the above rule is, in my view, to provide an address of service and also acts as acknowledgment that the court has jurisdiction over the matter. Rule 22 of the Probate Rules requires a citee to either accept or refuse to take grant. Julius in this case filed an affidavit as required under rule 22 of Probate Rules while Gladys did not file anything apart from the appearance.
7.It becomes apparent from the above discussion that there was no error apparent on the record. Gladys did not respond to the citation to either accept or refuse grant. This fact is what is reflected in the impugned ruling.
8.Gladys in bringing the present application alluded to her grievance towards the impugned Ruling stating that the court by that ruling disinherited the house she comes from. On that ground, I would respond to Gladys by stating that she ought to file an appeal against that determination. This court cannot as Gladys requests, sit on an appeal against its own determination. An apt decision is the case. The Eastern And Southern African Development Bank v African Green Fields Ltd & 2 others Civil Suit No 1189 Of 2000 where it was stated:-
9.For the above reasons, the chamber summons dated September 1, 2022 is dismissed with costs to the administrator.