[2005] KEHC 1879 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to extract a decree or order from the previous ruling, which is a mandatory procedural requirement for a review application. Additionally, the court determined that the documents relied upon by the applicant as new evidence were in existence and available prior to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1879 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Kamau Gateri; Respondent: Nairobi City Council; Respondent: Gateru Mutuanguare Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 439 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review of Injunction Dismissal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Injunctions, Discovery of New Evidence, Lease Renewal Disputes
- 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
Joseph Kamau Gateri
Applicant
Nairobi City Council
Respondent
Gateru Mutuanguare Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review of Injunction Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has discovered new and important evidence justifying review of the previous ruling.
- 2 Whether failure to extract a decree or order is fatal to the application for review.
- 3 Whether the applicant exercised due diligence in presenting evidence in the initial application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to extract a decree or order from the previous ruling, which is a mandatory procedural requirement for a review application. Additionally, the court determined that the documents relied upon by the applicant as new evidence were in existence and available prior to the initial application for an injunction, and thus did not constitute new and important evidence that could not have been produced with due diligence. Consequently, the application for review did not meet the threshold set by law and precedent, and the applicant's proper remedy lay in appealing the ruling rather than seeking review.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI Civil Suit 439 of 2004JOSEPH KAMAU GATERI…………….…………...PLAINTIFF/ APPLICANT VERSUS NAIROBI CITY COUNCIL………………...1ST DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT GATERU MUTUANGUARE CO. LTD…….2ND DEFENDANT/ REPONDENT
RULING This application of the 12/8/2004 is to review my ruling of the 28/7/2004 on the ground of the discovery of new and important matters and evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the Applicant’s knowledge.
The ruling referred to, dismissed an application by the Applicant herein for an injunction to restrain the Respondent from selling, transferring or dealing with the suit premises.
The reason for the dismissal was that on the evidence before me the Applicant had not shown that he had applied for a renewal of the lease of the suit premises which had expired.
I notice that the Applicant has not extracted a decree or order from my Ruling, which is fatal to this application. (See Jiranji Vs Jiranji 1929/30 KLR Vol 12 p 44 and Matahe Farmers Co. Vs N Farmers Co. Ltd HCCC No. 32 of 1974)
Leaving aside the question of whether there was a decree or order extracted, the documents annexed to the present application were all in existence and available prior to the application of the 30 April 2004 for the injunction. I cannot see that the Applicant has shown that there is any new evidence which with due diligence could not have been produced in the first instance.
It seems to me that the Applicant’s remedy is to appeal my ruling and seek a stay in the Court of Appeal.
I am not in a position to assist the Applicant further and have no alternative, for the reasons given, but to dismiss the application with costs to the Respondents.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI on the 20th day of January 2005
P. J RANSLEY JUDGE