[2006] KEHC 3557 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 3557 (KLR)

The court held that annexing the order sought to be reviewed is a mandatory procedural requirement under Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant's failure to annex the relevant order rendered the application incompetent. The court relied on established case law, including Gulamhusein M. Jivanji vs...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] KEHC 3557 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Mwangi Munyua & 3 Others; Defendant: George Mwai Mburu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 983 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
ARM Visram
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Mandatory Procedural Requirements, Affidavit Evidence, Annexures to Applications
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Review of Court Orders Mandatory Procedural Requirements Affidavit Evidence Annexures to Applications

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Mwangi Munyua & 3 Others

Plaintiff

George Mwai Mburu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for review is competent without annexing the order sought to be reviewed.
  2. 2 Whether failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements warrants dismissal of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that annexing the order sought to be reviewed is a mandatory procedural requirement under Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant's failure to annex the relevant order rendered the application incompetent. The court relied on established case law, including Gulamhusein M. Jivanji vs Ebrahim Jivanji & Another and Bernard Githii vs Kihoto Farmers Company Limited, which affirm that non-compliance with this requirement is fatal to such applications. Consequently, the application was dismissed solely on this ground, without consideration of the merits.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed for being incompetently before the court.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.