[2010] KEHC 1144 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 1144 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any discovery of new and important matter or evidence, nor any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any sufficient reason to justify review of the orders made on 9th February, 2010. The issue of the validity of the notice of appeal had already been canvassed and determined in the previous application, and the court's decision was a deliberate and conscious one. As such, any dissatisfaction with that decision should be pursued by way of appeal, not review. The application for review and stay of execution was therefore misconceived and lacked merit, leading to its dismissal.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 1144 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Lazaro Kabebe; Defendant: Ndege Makau; Defendant: Anjelo Njaibu Mugo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
18 October 2010
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 1222 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
GG Okwengu
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Stay of Execution, Notice of Appeal Validity, Procedural Irregularities
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Court Orders Stay of Execution Notice of Appeal Validity Procedural Irregularities

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lazaro Kabebe

Plaintiff

Ndege Makau

Defendant

Anjelo Njaibu Mugo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for review of the orders made on 9th February, 2010 under Order XLIV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record regarding the notice of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for stay of execution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any discovery of new and important matter or evidence, nor any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any sufficient reason to justify review of the orders made on 9th February, 2010. The issue of the validity of the notice of appeal had already been canvassed and determined in the previous application, and the court's decision was a deliberate and conscious one. As such, any dissatisfaction with that decision should be pursued by way of appeal, not review. The application for review and stay of execution was therefore misconceived and lacked merit, leading to its dismissal.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review and stay of execution is dismissed.