[2023] KEHC 24097 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 24097 (KLR)

The court found that the application for review was incompetent because it was filed and supported by documents dated prior to the delivery of the ruling sought to be reviewed. It is procedurally impossible to seek review of a decision that had not yet been made at the time of filing. Therefore, there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 24097 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Leonard Victor Odhiambo; Defendant: Mwananch Credit Limited; Defendant: Leonard Chege Mwangi p/a Laar Auctioneers
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case E030 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent.
Judges
JN Mulwa
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Costs Awards, Procedural Irregularities
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Review of Court Orders Costs Awards Procedural Irregularities

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

Parties

Leonard Victor Odhiambo

Plaintiff

Mwananch Credit Limited

Defendant

Leonard Chege Mwangi p/a Laar Auctioneers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order

  1. 1 Whether the application for review of the court's ruling dated 25/05/2023 is competent.
  2. 2 Whether documents filed before the date of the impugned ruling can support a review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for review was incompetent because it was filed and supported by documents dated prior to the delivery of the ruling sought to be reviewed. It is procedurally impossible to seek review of a decision that had not yet been made at the time of filing. Therefore, there was no competent application before the court to challenge the ruling of 25/05/2023, and the motion was dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent.

Orders

  • The motion dated 6/05/2023 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent.