[2024] KEELC 4088 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 4088 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff's application for review was essentially an invitation for the court to reconsider and possibly change its earlier decision, which is not the purpose of a review. The alleged error regarding the allotment of bonus plots and share certificates required elaborate reasoning and was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 4088 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Godfrey Ngugi Kabiru; Defendant: Embakasi Ranching Company Ltd; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar of Titles Nairobi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E253 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LN Mbugua
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Error on Face of Record, Allotment of Land, Share Certificates, Bonus Plots
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Judgment Error on Face of Record Allotment of Land Share Certificates Bonus Plots

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godfrey Ngugi Kabiru

Plaintiff

Embakasi Ranching Company Ltd

Defendant

Chief Land Registrar of Titles Nairobi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the court's judgment of 31.10.2023 awarding only 2 out of 6 claimed plots to the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a review of the judgment to include the 4 additional plots based on share certificates and allotment procedures.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's application for review was essentially an invitation for the court to reconsider and possibly change its earlier decision, which is not the purpose of a review. The alleged error regarding the allotment of bonus plots and share certificates required elaborate reasoning and was not self-evident or apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the application did not meet the threshold for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The proper recourse for the plaintiff would have been to file an appeal rather than seek a review. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 7.11.2023 is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.