[2004] KEHC 2644 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 2644 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record that would justify review of the orders made on 19th December, 2001. The absence of prior notice for the preliminary objection did not deprive the court of jurisdiction, nor did it amount to a breach of natural justice so obvious as to be correctable by review. The applicant was fully heard before the impugned orders were made, and any alleged failure of natural justice or jurisdiction was a matter for appeal, not review. The supporting affidavit was also found to be defective for being argumentative. Consequently, the application for review and setting aside of the orders was dismissed...

Citation
[2004] KEHC 2644 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: George Gikubu Mbuthia; Defendant: Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
26 November 2004
Case Number
Civil Case 751 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Setting Aside of Prior Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Error on Face of Record, Natural Justice, Preliminary Objection, Jurisdiction, Affidavit Requirements
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Review of Court Orders Error on Face of Record Natural Justice Preliminary Objection Jurisdiction Affidavit Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Gikubu Mbuthia

Plaintiff

Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Setting Aside of Prior Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court orders made on 19th December, 2001 should be reviewed and set aside for error apparent on the face of the record.
  2. 2 Whether failure to serve prior notice of a preliminary objection deprived the court of jurisdiction and breached natural justice.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's supporting affidavit was defective for being argumentative.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record that would justify review of the orders made on 19th December, 2001. The absence of prior notice for the preliminary objection did not deprive the court of jurisdiction, nor did it amount to a breach of natural justice so obvious as to be correctable by review. The applicant was fully heard before the impugned orders were made, and any alleged failure of natural justice or jurisdiction was a matter for appeal, not review. The supporting affidavit was also found to be defective for being argumentative. Consequently, the application for review and setting aside of the orders was dismissed...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application for review and setting aside of the orders made on 19th December, 2001 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.