[2018] KEHC 4925 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 4925 (KLR)

The court held that the application for review was incompetent because the applicant had already filed an appeal and failed to withdraw it as required by the consent order. Under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a party cannot seek review if an appeal has been preferred. Furthermore, the consent order...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 4925 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: M N N; Respondent: E W M
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 24 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Review of Consent Order
Outcome
application struck out with costs
Judges
FN Muchemi
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Consent Orders, Maintenance of Minor, Appeal Vs Review, Custody and Visitation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Family and Children Review of Court Orders Consent Orders Maintenance of Minor Appeal Vs Review Custody and Visitation

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M N N

Appellant

E W M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Review of Consent Order

  1. 1 Whether the application for review is competent in light of the existing appeal and consent order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to review or variation of the consent order issued by the lower court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for review was incompetent because the applicant had already filed an appeal and failed to withdraw it as required by the consent order. Under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a party cannot seek review if an appeal has been preferred. Furthermore, the consent order was binding on both parties, and the applicant, having entered into the consent and failed to comply with its terms, could not seek to review or vary it before the appellate court. The court found that the application was a tactic to delay execution and defeat the respondent's rights, particularly those of the minor entitled to maintenance. Consequently, the application was...

Court Disposition

application struck out with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 6/04/2018 is struck out as incompetent.
  • The applicant shall pay costs to the respondent.