[2016] KEHC 4663 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 4663 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to identify any new and important matter or evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason to warrant review of the judgment. The applicant's own affidavit confirmed agreement with the judgment, and the application was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 4663 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: A N M; Defendant: D N M
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 130 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property, Division of Property, Review of Judgment, Grounds for Review
Source Language
en
Family and Children Civil Procedure Matrimonial Property Division of Property Review of Judgment Grounds for Review

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

A N M

Plaintiff

D N M

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the legal threshold for review of the court's judgment under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated discovery of new and important evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason to warrant review.
  3. 3 Whether the application is an abuse of the court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to identify any new and important matter or evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason to warrant review of the judgment. The applicant's own affidavit confirmed agreement with the judgment, and the application was essentially an attempt to seek court approval for an offer to the respondent, not a proper ground for review. The court emphasized that review is not a mechanism for re-arguing matters already decided or for seeking approval of settlement offers. The application was therefore devoid of merit and dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 6th January 2016 is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.