[2013] KEHC 4979 (KLR)
The court found that the original appellate judgment was based on the denial of the appellant's right to be heard in the lower court, and did not address the merits or ownership of the rice holding. The alleged new evidence regarding ownership was not relevant to the appellate decision, and should be presented to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 4979 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: James Muthii Njogu; Respondent: Francis Muya Njogu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 99 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for review partially allowed; order on costs reviewed and set aside; each party to bear own costs.
- Judges
- HI Ong'udi
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Costs Award, Right to Be Heard
- 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
James Muthii Njogu
Appellant
Francis Muya Njogu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review and set aside its judgment delivered on 15/3/2012 based on alleged discovery of new evidence.
- 2 Whether the order on costs in the appellate judgment should be reviewed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the original appellate judgment was based on the denial of the appellant's right to be heard in the lower court, and did not address the merits or ownership of the rice holding. The alleged new evidence regarding ownership was not relevant to the appellate decision, and should be presented to the trial court. However, the court acknowledged that the trial court erred in denying the applicant an opportunity to be heard, and therefore reviewed and set aside the order on costs, directing that each party bear their own costs for both the appeal and the application.
Court Disposition
Application for review partially allowed; order on costs reviewed and set aside; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- The order on costs in the appellate judgment is reviewed and set aside.
- Each party shall bear his own costs of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Embu
Civil Appeal 99 of 2010 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
14. 00
</xml><![endif]
(Being an appeal from the Ruling of D.A. OCHARO Resident Magistrate Wanguru
delivered on 9th September 2010 in Civil Case No. 150 of 2008)
JAMES MUTHII NJOGU..................................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
FRANCIS MUYA NJOGU............................................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The Applicant has filed the application dated 20th April 2012 for Review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45 Rule 1, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. He is asking this court to review it and set aside its judgment delivered on 15/3/2012 and in its place dismiss the appeal. The grounds are that it has been discovered that the Rice holding No.2342 belongs to Makui Mbiu Njogu.
He has also raised an issue on payment of costs. He filed a supporting affidavit. The respondent filed a replying affidavit opposing the application saying no new matters had been discovered.
I will not delve so much into the issue of new discoveries by the Applicant. It is very clear that the reason why the appeal herein was allowed was that the appellant was denied a chance to be heard and a judgment delivered in the lower Court.
This court did not get into the arena of evaluating the evidence in order to deal with merits or otherwise of the appeal. I would therefore not wish to delve into the area of who owns which Rice holding and so on. I did not make any finding on ownership of the alleged rice holding. Had the respondent been given an opportunity to be heard, it would have clearly come out and a decision made on merit. And that being the case, I would advise the applicant to have the new fact discovered placed before the trial court for consideration.
However, on the issue of costs, I agree that the trial court is the one that erred in denying the Applicant an opportunity to be heard. I therefore review the order on costs and set it aside.
I order that each party bears his own costs of the appeal. The same order applies to this application.
DELIVERED, SIGNED AND DATED AT EMBU THIS 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013.
H.I. ONG'UDI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Ms. Ndorongo for applicant
Njue CC