[2017] KEHC 7287 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 7287 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any reasonable basis or sufficient reason for reviewing the order previously made by Justice Omollo. No new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated in the supporting affidavit or in oral submissions. Consequently, the application for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 7287 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lunao African Divine Church; Respondent: Solomon Wanyama Kululu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 127 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
SN Mukunya
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Costs Award, Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Review of Court Orders Costs Award Affidavit Evidence

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lunao African Divine Church

Applicant

Solomon Wanyama Kululu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a reasonable basis for reviewing the order of Justice Omollo.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient reasons or evidence to warrant review of the previous order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any reasonable basis or sufficient reason for reviewing the order previously made by Justice Omollo. No new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated in the supporting affidavit or in oral submissions. Consequently, the application for review did not meet the threshold set by the Civil Procedure Rules, and the court was unable to grant the relief sought. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs to the respondent.