[2020] KEHC 6845 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 6845 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or any self-evident error or omission on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason that would entitle him to an order of review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 6845 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Henry Nyabuto Ondieki; Respondent: Dr. Gedion Muriuki (CEO Cooperative Bank of Kenya); Respondent: Company Secretary (Cooperative Bank of Kenya); Respondent: Steven Oyucho (Manager Cooperative Bank of Kenya, Kisumu)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 21 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Stay Orders Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Stay of Execution, Threshold for Review, Appeal Vs Review
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Review of Court Orders Stay of Execution Threshold for Review Appeal Vs Review

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Nyabuto Ondieki

Applicant

Dr. Gedion Muriuki (CEO Cooperative Bank of Kenya)

Respondent

Company Secretary (Cooperative Bank of Kenya)

Respondent

Steven Oyucho (Manager Cooperative Bank of Kenya, Kisumu)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Stay Orders Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant satisfied the threshold for grant of an order of review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason for review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or any self-evident error or omission on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason that would entitle him to an order of review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant's arguments amounted to a challenge of the court's reasoning and conclusions, which is not a ground for review but for appeal. The court held that the proper remedy for the applicant was to pursue an appeal, not a review. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 24th February 2020 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.