[2018] KEELC 2315 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 2315 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide compelling reasons for review of the judgment delivered in 2011. The application was filed three years after the applicant allegedly became aware of the case, and the overall delay from the commencement of the suit in 1992 to the application in 2017 was deemed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 2315 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Justus Mwirichia & 10 Others (suing on behalf of 46 others) Katheri Farmers Co. Ltd; Defendant: Katheri Farmers Company Ltd
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 105 of 1992
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to respondent
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Inordinate Delay, Expeditious Justice, Shareholder Rights
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Judgment Inordinate Delay Expeditious Justice Shareholder Rights

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

Justus Mwirichia & 10 Others (suing on behalf of 46 others) Katheri Farmers Co. Ltd

Plaintiff

Katheri Farmers Company Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds for review of the judgment delivered on 29.9.2011.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing and prosecuting the application for review is excusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide compelling reasons for review of the judgment delivered in 2011. The application was filed three years after the applicant allegedly became aware of the case, and the overall delay from the commencement of the suit in 1992 to the application in 2017 was deemed inordinate and inexcusable. The court emphasized its constitutional mandate to ensure expeditious administration of justice and held that reopening the matter after 26 years would be contrary to this mandate. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed for lack of merit and for inordinate delay.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 20.9.2015 and filed on 13.9.2017 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.