[2004] KEHC 2106 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 2106 (KLR)

The court found that there was no evidence presented to warrant a review of the consent judgment or to nullify the sale of the disputed property. The applicants had previously admitted to instructing their advocates to enter into the consent judgment, and no grounds were disclosed to set aside what was essentially a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] KEHC 2106 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jane Akello Vocke; Plaintiff: Horst Vocke; Defendant: Trans-National Bank Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 430 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Consent Judgment and Sale
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Consent Judgment, Sale of Property, Order 44 Civil Procedure, Setting Aside Contract
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Review of Judgment Consent Judgment Sale of Property Order 44 Civil Procedure Setting Aside Contract

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Akello Vocke

Plaintiff

Horst Vocke

Plaintiff

Trans-National Bank Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Consent Judgment and Sale

  1. 1 Whether the consent judgment entered on 28/11/2001 should be reviewed or set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the sale of the disputed property by private treaty at below market price should be nullified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no evidence presented to warrant a review of the consent judgment or to nullify the sale of the disputed property. The applicants had previously admitted to instructing their advocates to enter into the consent judgment, and no grounds were disclosed to set aside what was essentially a private contract. Furthermore, the purchaser of the property was not a party to the suit, and his rights would be prejudiced by any orders made against him. The application was therefore without merit and was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for review and nullification is dismissed with costs.