1.Court for the fifth time. They purport in their notice of motion dated October 8, 2021 to seek review of the following decisions:i.Judgment of the High Court of Kenya (Mwilu, J. as she then was) dated May 2, 2011;ii.Judgment of this Court (Maraga JA, as he then was, Musinga and Gatembu, JJA) dated October 29, 2015; andiii.Ruling of this Court (Okwengu, Gatembu and M’Inoti, JJA)dated October 5, 2017.
2.As regards the prayer for review of the judgment of the High Court dated May 2, 2011, it hardly needs any emphasis that this court has no jurisdiction to “review” a judgment of the High Court, particularly after it has heard and determined an appeal from the same judgment. As regards the prayers for review of the judgment and ruling of this court, a short narration of the background to this application will vividly show that not only is the current application res judicata, but it is also blatant abuse of the process of the court.
3.The 1st respondent, National Bank of Kenya, terminated the 1st applicant’s employment after a customer made allegations of money laundering against him and following a search of his office conducted by officers of the 2nd respondent, Central Bank of Kenya. The 1st applicant filed a suit against the respondents in the High Court (HCCC No. 115 of 1999) challenging his termination. The High Court found in his favour and directed the Deputy Registrar to compute his terminal dues. The 1st respondent was aggrieved and lodged an appeal in this Court (CA No. 116 of 2012) and by a judgment dated February 5, 2016, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the High Court for hearing because the judgment in favour of the 1st applicant was neither signed nor dated.
4.Back in the High Court, the two applicants filed a second suit, HCCC No. 179 of 1999 against the two respondents claiming damages, for among others, loss of business, illegal search of premises, defamation and payment of the 1st applicant’s loan which he was unable to repay. The High Court dismissed that second suit as res judicata and the applicants appealed to this court in CA No. 182 of 2011. By a judgment dated October 29, 2015, the court upheld the decision of the High Court that the applicants’ second suit was res judicata.
5.Next, the applicants returned to this Court seeking review of the judgment of October 29, 2015. Their application for review was dismissed as totally lacking in merit by a ruling dated October 5, 2017. Undeterred, they filed another application to correct alleged errors in the ruling dated October 5, 2017. That application suffered the same fate when it was dismissed on May 19, 2021.
6.What the above narrative shows is that before the current application, the applicants had unsuccessfully applied for review of the judgment dated October 29, 2015. They had also unsuccessfully sought correction of alleged errors in the ruling dated October 5, 2017. In the present application, they are once again seeking review of the judgment dated 29th October 205 and the ruling dated October 5, 2017.
7.The applicants’ unduly long and argumentative application, supporting affidavits and submissions are a regurgitation of the history of the litigation and an invitation of the court to sit on appeal against its previous decisions and come to different conclusions. It is alleged that the court misapprehended the facts and reached wrong conclusions, which it should now change.
8.The respondents have taken objection to the application, contending in their submissions dated July 15, 2022 that the same is res judicata. Relying on section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and the decision of this court in IEBC v. Maina Kiai & 5 others  eKLR the respondents submitted that the present application was res judicata because the issues now raised were directly or substantially in issue in the applicant’s former applications for review, the former applications were between the same parties as in the present application, the issues raised were heard and determined in the former applications and by a competent court.
9.We need to add that the jurisdiction of this court to review and re-open its decisions is residual and to be exercised with circumspection, and only in exceptional circumstances. For example, in Benjoh Amalgamated & Another v. Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd  eKLR this court stated as follows:
10.Having carefully considered the present application, we are satisfied that we cannot entertain the same because it is res judicata and does not disclose even a scintilla of special circumstances that would justify invoking the court’s residual jurisdiction. The application has absolutely no merit and the same is dismissed with costs to the respondents. It is so ordered.