[2024] KEHC 4228 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 4228 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the prerequisites for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The sale agreement and evidence of transport costs, which the applicant sought to rely on, were not produced in the lower court proceedings and thus constituted new evidence that could not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 4228 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Leonard Okumu Gumba; Respondent: Faulu Microfinance
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Migori
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
25 April 2024
Case Number
Civil Appeal E093 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
RPV Wendoh
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Damages for Illegal Repossession, Public Embarrassment, Admissibility of Evidence
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Tort Law Review of Judgment Damages for Illegal Repossession Public Embarrassment Admissibility of Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Okumu Gumba

Applicant

Faulu Microfinance

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the legal requirements for review of judgment under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether new evidence (sale agreement and transport costs) can be admitted at the appellate stage for purposes of review.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to enhanced damages and compensation for loss of income.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the prerequisites for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The sale agreement and evidence of transport costs, which the applicant sought to rely on, were not produced in the lower court proceedings and thus constituted new evidence that could not be admitted at the appellate stage without proper leave. The court reiterated that its jurisdiction on review is limited and cannot be used to introduce evidence that was available but not presented at trial. The applicant also failed to demonstrate any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason to warrant review. Consequently, the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 16th August 2023 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.