[2023] KEELC 17642 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 17642 (KLR)

The court found that the application for review was not specific regarding the orders sought to be reviewed, rendering the prayer vague and unsustainable. The boundary reports relied upon by the applicant had already been adopted by the court prior to judgment, and a previous application to set them aside had been...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 17642 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: John Nyang’au Monyenche; 1st Defendant: Nyamusi Nyamboga; 2nd Defendant: Nackson Onyancha Momanyi; 3rd Defendant: Peris Kemunto Monyenye
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nyamira
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 35 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
JM Kamau
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Error on Face of Record, Boundary Disputes, Eviction Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Judgment Error on Face of Record Boundary Disputes Eviction Orders

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Nyang’au Monyenche

Plaintiff

Nyamusi Nyamboga

1st Defendant

Nackson Onyancha Momanyi

2nd Defendant

Peris Kemunto Monyenye

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review of the judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the application for review was filed without unreasonable delay.
  3. 3 Whether the boundary reports adopted by the court justified setting aside the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for review was not specific regarding the orders sought to be reviewed, rendering the prayer vague and unsustainable. The boundary reports relied upon by the applicant had already been adopted by the court prior to judgment, and a previous application to set them aside had been dismissed. The court held there was no error apparent on the face of the record and that the application constituted an abuse of judicial time. The delay in filing the application was also noted. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 21/12/2022 is dismissed with costs.