[2007] KEHC 3021 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had not satisfied the requirements for review under Order XLIV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as there was no discovery of new and important matter or evidence, nor any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The application was also dismissed on grounds of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3021 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: National Bank of Kenya; Defendant: Ngaipian Enterprises; Defendant: Samuel Njiraini Ngambia; Defendant: Naomi Wambui Njiraini
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 1376 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Summary Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent/plaintiff
- Judges
- JM Khamoni
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Summary Judgment, Delay in Filing, Abuse of Process
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
National Bank of Kenya
Plaintiff
Ngaipian Enterprises
Defendant
Samuel Njiraini Ngambia
Defendant
Naomi Wambui Njiraini
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Summary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have established grounds for review of the summary judgment under Order XLIV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the application for review is barred due to inordinate delay.
- 3 Whether the existence of a pending appeal precludes the grant of review.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had not satisfied the requirements for review under Order XLIV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as there was no discovery of new and important matter or evidence, nor any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The application was also dismissed on grounds of inordinate delay, as it was filed seven to eight years after the judgment. Furthermore, the existence of a pending appeal by the applicants precluded the grant of review. The court also noted that the applicants had previously only sought time to satisfy the judgment and had not challenged its legality. The application was deemed frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court's...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent/plaintiff
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 23rd January, 2007 is dismissed with costs to the respondent/plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Suit 1376 of 1996
NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA..........................................................PLAINTIFF
versus
NGAIPIAN ENTERPRISES…………….………..…..….... 1ST DEFENDANT
SAMUEL NJIRAINI NGAMBIA …………………........…... 2ND DEFENDANT
NAOMI WAMBUI NJIRAINI ……………………….........… 3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
This is a Notice of Motion dated 23rd January, 2007 and stated to have been brought by Applicants/Defendants under sections 3A and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order XI Rule 22, Order XX Rule 3 (3) and Rule 16, and Order XLIV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and all enabling provisions of the Law.
The Judgment in question was delivered on 22nd November, 1999 and the relevant decree issued on 19th January, 2001. It was a Summary Judgment entered by this court after the Defendant’s defence was struck out following an inter partes hearing of an application for Summary Judgment, which application was fully contested by the Defendants who therefore had full opportunity to let this court, at that time, know what the Applicants/Same Defendants are telling me now as everything was or ought to have been within the knowledge of the Applicants by then. From what has been brought to my attention during the hearing of this Notice of Motion therefore, the said Notice of Motion is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent/Plaintiff for the following reasons:
Firstly, proceedings, Judgment and decree in this case are not covered under order XLIV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules as there is no proof of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the Applicants or could not be produced by them at the time when the decree was passed or the order made or there is no proof of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or evidence of any other sufficient reason.
Secondly, there was too much delay in filing this Notice of Motion as about seven to eight years passed before the application was filed.
Thirdly, the applicants having filed a notice of appeal against the judgment in question in this matter and admitting in paragraph seven of their further affidavit which they have not amended, that there is such an appeal and there having been no formal and acceptable step taken to remove the admission that the appeal has been filed, the Applicants are not entitled to the remedy of a review under order XLIV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Fourthly, during proceedings concerning the Notice to Show Cause, the Applicants have only been asking for time to make proposals to satisfy the Judgment without challenging the legality of that judgment.
Fifthly, in law, there is in this suit no decree dated 19th January, 2000 as claimed in prayer number 3 of the Notice of Motion dated 23rd January, 2007.
Sixthly the said Notice of Motion is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of this court’s process as the said Notice of Motion is brought on the basis of provisions of the law which are not available to the Applicants in circumstances of this case and therefore the Notice of Motion is not only wrongfully asking for a review but it is also wrongfully asking for various other orders, all those in addition to the fact that the same Notice of Motion is a disguised appeal making me sit on an appeal against a judgment of my colleague Judge of the High Court when I have no jurisdiction to do so.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 27th day of March, 2007.
J.M. KHAMONI
JUDGE