[2020] KEELC 3249 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 3249 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to exercise due diligence, as the surveyor's report could have been filed before the initial ruling. The application for review was made approximately ten months after the ruling, and the delay was neither explained nor justified. The court held that the delay was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 3249 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Alfred Buore Ngonga; Defendant: Captain John Omondi Ochieng; Defendant: Alred Omondi Adipo; Defendant: Leah Akinyi Adipo; Defendant: Francis Adipo Ondeyo; Defendant: Kisumu County Government
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 77 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
TM Olando
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Injunctions, Survey Evidence, Delay in Filing, Due Diligence
Source Language
en
Land and Property Review of Court Orders Injunctions Survey Evidence Delay in Filing Due Diligence

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Buore Ngonga

Plaintiff

Captain John Omondi Ochieng

Defendant

Alred Omondi Adipo

Defendant

Leah Akinyi Adipo

Defendant

Francis Adipo Ondeyo

Defendant

Kisumu County Government

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for review of the court's ruling delivered on 18/10/2017.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an injunction based on the new surveyor's report.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the application was reasonable and justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to exercise due diligence, as the surveyor's report could have been filed before the initial ruling. The application for review was made approximately ten months after the ruling, and the delay was neither explained nor justified. The court held that the delay was unreasonable and inordinate, and that no sufficient reason existed to warrant review of the previous ruling. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 24th June 2018 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.