[2010] KEHC 2450 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to specify any new and important evidence discovered after the order was made. The only issue raised was a discrepancy in the year stated on the hearing notice, which did not amount to a discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2450 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Annah Chebet Sitienei; Applicant: Kositany Cheruiyot Joshua; Respondent: Chelule A. Lasoi; Respondent: Joseph Kipkurui Langat; Respondent: David Kipkemoi Tuei; Respondent: John Kibet Langat; Respondent: Julius Kipkoech Chelule; Respondent: Monica Chesang; Respondent: Naomi Chepkurui; Respondent: Mercy Chepkoech Langat; Respondent: Joyce Chepkirui Tuei
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 275 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review and Setting Aside of Injunctive Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- SP Ouko
- Legal Topics
- Review of Orders, Injunctions, Adverse Possession, Service of Process, Delay in Application
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Annah Chebet Sitienei
Applicant
Kositany Cheruiyot Joshua
Applicant
Chelule A. Lasoi
Respondent
Joseph Kipkurui Langat
Respondent
David Kipkemoi Tuei
Respondent
John Kibet Langat
Respondent
Julius Kipkoech Chelule
Respondent
Monica Chesang
Respondent
Naomi Chepkurui
Respondent
Mercy Chepkoech Langat
Respondent
Joyce Chepkirui Tuei
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review and Setting Aside of Injunctive Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have met the threshold for review or setting aside of injunctive orders under Order 44 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the confusion regarding the hearing date constitutes a sufficient ground for review.
- 3 Whether the application for review was brought without unreasonable delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to specify any new and important evidence discovered after the order was made. The only issue raised was a discrepancy in the year stated on the hearing notice, which did not amount to a discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record. The applicants were served and had sufficient time to clarify the hearing date with the court but failed to do so. Furthermore, the application for review was filed nearly a year after the orders were issued, and no explanation for the delay was provided. The court held that the grounds for review or setting aside the injunctive orders were not satisfied and dismissed the application with...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for review and setting aside of the injunctive orders is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
Civil Suit 275 of 2007
ANNAH CHEBET SITIENEI.................................1ST APPLICANT
KOSITANY CHERUIYOT JOSHUA.....................2NDAPPLICANT
VERSUS
CHELULE A. LASOI.........................................1ST RESPONDENT
JOSEPH KIPKURUI LANGAT.......................2ND RESPONDENT
DAVID KIPKEMOI TUEI..................................3RD RESPONDENT
JOHN KIBET LANGAT....................................4TH RESPONDENT
JULIUS KIPKOECH CHELULE....................5TH RESPONDENT
MONICA CHESANG........................................6TH RESPONDENT
NAOMI CHEPKURUI.......................................7TH RESPONDENT
MERCY CHEPKOECH LANGAT..................8TH RESPONDENT
JOYCE CHEPKIRUI TUEI..............................9TH RESPONDENT
RULING
Simultaneously with the originating summons, the respondents brought the instant chamber summons seeking inter alia restraining orders against the applicants in respect of parcel No. NAROK/CIS/MARA/OLOLOLUNGA/1400, (the suit land) which the respondents claim by way of adverse possession.
On 14th February, 2008, the court (Koome, J) granted an injunction restraining the applicants from evicting or disturbing the respondents, selling or alienating the suit land until the suit is heard and determined. It is that order that has aggrieved the applicants who now seek, in the present application dated 17th July, 2009 thatthose orders be reviewed and set aside. The application is premised on the grounds that the applicants were served with a hearing notice which indicated the hearing date as 17thFebruary, 2007 yet the application had been set down for hearing on 14thFebruary, 2008. That due to this mix-up on the dates, the applicants were denied a chance to oppose the application and to indicate to the court the true position on the suit land, namely, that the respondents are not in occupation of the same.
In reply, the respondents argued that the hearing notice was clear on the date; that it has taken the applicants nearly one year to challenge the orders, yet they have all along been aware of the same.
I have considered these arguments. The application, as I have stated, is for review and setting aside of the injunctive orders. It is brought pursuant to Order 44and50 rule 1. Of relevance, is order 44 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides, inter alia, that any person aggrieved by an order may apply for a review of the same on the following grounds:
i)discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant, or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or
ii)on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
iii)for any other sufficient reason.
It is also a requirement that an application for review be brought without unreasonable delay. At paragraph K of the grounds on the motion, it is averred that there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Counsel for the applicants did however, submit that he was relying on all the grounds for review. Starting with the first ground, namely, discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, the applicants have not specified which new evidence they have come by.
The applicants do not dispute that they were served. Their only contention is that the date reflected on the face of the chamber summons was different from the date the application came upon for interpartes hearing. I have looked closely at the date in question and I have no difficulty in discerning that it is clearly 14th February, 2007. The only problem with this date is the year - 2007 instead of 2008, and not the date. The applicants have conceded that they were served on 15th December, 2007.
Upon being served with a belated hearing notice and if they were diligent, they ought to have been curious to confirm with the court. If they did so, it would have become clear that the matter was coming up later on and they would have had a chance to oppose theapplication. The confusion regarding the date cannot constitute a discovery of a new and important matter. Is there a mistake or an
error on the face of the record? None has been pointed out to the court. It cannot, of course, be the hearing date. I am also unable to find any justification for my exercising my discretion to review the orders under the rubric“for any other sufficient reason.” The remedy of setting aside is similarly not available for the same reason.
The orders in question were issued on 14th February, 2008 and this application filed on 23rd July, 2009 – a delay of nearly one year that has not been explained.
For these reasons, this application must fail and I do not wish to address the other technical issued raised as they do not go to the merit of the application.
The application is dismissed with costs.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 30th day of April, 2010.
W. OUKO
JUDGE