[2020] KEELC 1744 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 1744 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the conditions for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act. The alleged new evidence, including ownership documents and witness statements, was within the applicant's knowledge and could have been produced with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 1744 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Safari Ngari; Defendant: Sheikh Nurein Muhidin
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 95 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Interlocutory Injunction Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
CK Yano
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Injunctions, Review of Orders, Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Injunctions Review of Orders Ownership Disputes

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Safari Ngari

Plaintiff

Sheikh Nurein Muhidin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Interlocutory Injunction Orders

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for review of the court's orders issued on 22/2/2019 under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged new evidence was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not have been produced with due diligence at the time of the original hearing.
  3. 3 Whether the interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the suit property should be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the conditions for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act. The alleged new evidence, including ownership documents and witness statements, was within the applicant's knowledge and could have been produced with due diligence at the time of the original application. The court further held that even if the evidence were considered new, it would not have altered the decision, as the issue of possession and status quo had already been addressed in the earlier ruling. The applicant's failure to present the evidence earlier was not a sufficient ground for review. Consequently, the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 10th May 2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.