[2023] KEELC 21321 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 21321 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient reason to warrant review of the previous ruling because the court had failed to consider the letter dated 30th January 2023, which constituted a Completion Notice and was material to determining when time began to run for limitation purposes. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 21321 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jordens Gerrit; Defendant: Terakate Properties Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E117 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Previous Court Order
Outcome
Application for review allowed; previous orders set aside; suit and application reinstated.
Judges
EK Wabwoto
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Specific Performance, Limitation Periods, Sale of Land Agreements
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Review of Court Orders Specific Performance Limitation Periods Sale of Land Agreements

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jordens Gerrit

Plaintiff

Terakate Properties Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Previous Court Order

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient reason to warrant review of the court’s ruling delivered on 16th June 2023.
  2. 2 Whether the court failed to consider material evidence, specifically the letter dated 30th January 2023, in its previous ruling.
  3. 3 When time began to run for purposes of limitation in a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient reason to warrant review of the previous ruling because the court had failed to consider the letter dated 30th January 2023, which constituted a Completion Notice and was material to determining when time began to run for limitation purposes. The court held that time began to run only after the breach following the Completion Notice, not from the date of the original agreements. The omission of this evidence in the earlier ruling was a sufficient ground for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act. Consequently, the court set aside its previous orders, reinstated the...

Court Disposition

Application for review allowed; previous orders set aside; suit and application reinstated.

Orders

  • The orders issued on 16th June 2023 are hereby set aside.
  • The plaintiff’s suit and the application dated 22nd March 2023 are reinstated for determination.