[2025] KEHC 10070 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 10070 (KLR)

The court found that the omission to specify which party should receive the portion of Nyota Farm containing the matrimonial home and developments was not an error apparent on the face of the record nor did it constitute any other sufficient reason for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. The original judgment was consciously framed after considering the evidence, submissions, and applicable law. The applicant failed to establish a lawful basis for review, as the grounds advanced required elaborate argument and did not meet the threshold for review as set out in precedent. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 10070 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: EJ; Respondent: JKN
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 July 2025
Case Number
Family Originating Summons E4 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Originating Summons / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JM Nang'ea
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property Distribution, Review of Judgment, Matrimonial Home Entitlement
Source Language
English
Family and Children Civil Procedure Matrimonial Property Distribution Review of Judgment Matrimonial Home Entitlement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EJ

Applicant

JKN

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Originating Summons / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the omission to specify allocation of the matrimonial home in the judgment constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to have her 25% share of Nyota Farm include the matrimonial home and developments thereon.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the omission to specify which party should receive the portion of Nyota Farm containing the matrimonial home and developments was not an error apparent on the face of the record nor did it constitute any other sufficient reason for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. The original judgment was consciously framed after considering the evidence, submissions, and applicable law. The applicant failed to establish a lawful basis for review, as the grounds advanced required elaborate argument and did not meet the threshold for review as set out in precedent. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.