[2004] KEHC 2404 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 2404 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to attach the decree or judgment he sought to have reviewed, as required by Order 44 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Without the necessary documents, there was nothing before the court to review. Additionally, the applicant, having filed the appeal, was obligated to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] KEHC 2404 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Mayieka Oriku; Appellant: Maina Nyachuba; Appellant: Obuchi Omboto; Respondent: Moraa Orina; Respondent: Nyachio Onchonga; Applicant: Julius Makori
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 237 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review and Expungement of Name
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Withdrawal of Suit, Procedural Requirements
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Review of Judgment Withdrawal of Suit Procedural Requirements

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

Mayieka Oriku

Appellant

Maina Nyachuba

Appellant

Obuchi Omboto

Appellant

Moraa Orina

Respondent

Nyachio Onchonga

Respondent

Julius Makori

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review and Expungement of Name

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to review of the decree/judgment dated 16th May 2002.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's name should be expunged from the record as one of the appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the application for review is competent without attaching the decree or judgment sought to be reviewed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to attach the decree or judgment he sought to have reviewed, as required by Order 44 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Without the necessary documents, there was nothing before the court to review. Additionally, the applicant, having filed the appeal, was obligated to prosecute it, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the suit against him in the lower court. The application was therefore dismissed for being procedurally incompetent and lacking merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.