[2011] KEHC 1220 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant/applicant failed to satisfy any of the four statutory grounds for review under Order XLV rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. There was no discovery of new and important matter or evidence, no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and no other sufficient cause....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1220 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Benjamin K. Komen; Plaintiff: Joyce Taplulei; Plaintiff: Jeremiah Chepkeitany; Defendant: Henry Kibet Rotich
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 340 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Injunction Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs/respondents
- Judges
- MJA Emukule
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Injunctions, Delay in Application, Letters of Administration, Beneficial Ownership of Land
- 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
Benjamin K. Komen
Plaintiff
Joyce Taplulei
Plaintiff
Jeremiah Chepkeitany
Plaintiff
Henry Kibet Rotich
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Injunction Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant/applicant has satisfied the conditions for review of the court's order of 3rd March 2010.
- 2 Whether there was unreasonable delay in bringing the application for review.
- 3 Whether any new and important matter or evidence has been presented to justify review.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant/applicant failed to satisfy any of the four statutory grounds for review under Order XLV rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. There was no discovery of new and important matter or evidence, no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and no other sufficient cause. Furthermore, the application was brought after a delay of approximately seven months, which the court deemed inordinate and unjustified. As a result, the application for review was dismissed, and the status quo as established by the previous injunction order was maintained until the substantive suit is heard and determined.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs/respondents
Orders
- The defendant's application dated and filed on 18th October 2010 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs/respondents.
- The temporary injunction restraining the defendant from disposing, constructing, or interfering with the suit land remains in force until the suit is heard and determined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CIVIL CASE NO. 340 OF 2009
BENJAMIN K. KOMEN……………………....…......……………….……………………..1ST PLAINTIFF
JOYCE TAPLULEI…………………………………….....……………………………….2ND PLAINTIFF
JEREMIAH CHEPKEITANY………………………..............……………………………..3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HENRY KIBET ROTICH……………………………...........…..…………………………….DEFENDANT
RULING
By a Notice of Motion dated and filed on 18th October 2010, the Defendant/Applicant sought the orders following -
(1) Certification of the application as urgent.
(2) Review of the court's ruling made on 31st March 2010.
(3) Costs of the application be provided for.
The application was supported by the Affidavit of the Defendant/Applicant sworn on 18th October 2010 and the principal ground that the Plaintiffs'/Respondents have not complied with the ruling of 3rd March 2010 and have continued to frustrate the Defendant/Applicant efforts to use the disputed suit premises.
The application was opposed by the Replying Affidavit of the 3rd Plaintiff/Respondent expressed to be sworn on his own, and on behalf of the other two plaintiff/respondents. The application raises one issue, whether the orders of 3rd March 2010 should be reviewed.
The application herein is expressed to be brought under the provisions of Order XLV rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Under that rule an order or decree may be reviewed on three grounds -
(1)discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time the decree was passed or order made, or
(2) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record,
(3) any other sufficient, and
(4) the application is made without unreasonable delay.
Those are conditions which are prerequisite to exercise by the court of its discretion to review orders or decree of court.
In this case the order to be reviewed was made on 3rd March 2010. The application herein was made on 18th October 2010, that is some seven (7) or so months after the orders of injunction were made. I think that is a very inordinate period of delay even for an order of injunction. The application therefore fails the test of time. What of the other tests?
The Defendant/Applicant's application did not show any new and important matter or evidence which in the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by the Defendant/Applicant. Neither is there any other sufficient cause as ground for review. No error or mistake on the face of the record was pleaded or shown by the Applicant in his application. The application fails in those tests too.
Having failed all the four tests for review, the situation is left as Hon. Justice Maraga ruled on 31st March 2010,
"That to avoid bloodshed, I grant a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendant by himself, his agents and/or servants from disposing, constructing a permanent or any other structure on the suit land or in any way interfering with the portion occupied by the Plaintiffs until this suit is heard and determined."
The only aspect that has changed is that the Defendant/Applicant has applied for and obtained a Grant of Letters of Administration issued in Eldoret Succession Cause No. 270 of 2009 and dated 27th January 2010.
The 3rd Plaintiff/Respondent avers in his Replying Affidavit that he has or they(plaintiffs) too, have applied for Grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of Gideon Chepketiny Rotich (the deceased in Eldoret High Court Succession Cause No. 252 of 2010). I direct counsel for the Plaintiffs/Respondents and the Defendant/Respondent to discuss with their clients so that only one grant is issued and progress towards the resolution of the dispute which is, who is the rightful beneficiary of the parcel of land known as BARINGO/KAPROPITA/2 originally held and still in the name of Gideon Christopher Rotich, now deceased.
In the meantime, the Defendant's Application dated and filed on 18th October 2010, if for the reasons given above, dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs/Respondents.
There shall be orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 27th day of May 2011
M. J. ANYARA EMUKULE
JUDGE