[2023] KEHC 26344 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 26344 (KLR)

The High Court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate any of the statutory grounds for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that the issues raised by the appellants, including alleged failure by the trial court to consider certain affidavit evidence and the question of their dependency, were substantial matters suitable for appeal, not review. The court emphasized that review is only available for patent errors, discovery of new evidence not previously available with due diligence, or other sufficient reasons analogous to these. The appellants did not show discovery of new evidence, any error apparent on the face of the record, or any other...

Citation
[2023] KEHC 26344 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Hellen Akinyi Onyango; Appellant: Lavina Achieng Onyango; Appellant: Awinda O. Kennedy; Respondent: Peter Okong’O Awaa; Respondent: Moses Omondi Awaa; Respondent: Hesbon Otieno Nyamunde
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 December 2023
Case Number
Civil Appeal E075 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Succession Proceedings, Dependant Status, Standard of Proof, Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family and Children Review of Court Orders Succession Proceedings Dependant Status Standard of Proof Affidavit Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hellen Akinyi Onyango

Appellant

Lavina Achieng Onyango

Appellant

Awinda O. Kennedy

Appellant

Peter Okong’O Awaa

Respondent

Moses Omondi Awaa

Respondent

Hesbon Otieno Nyamunde

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants met the threshold for review of the trial court's ruling under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the appellants' application for review based on the evidence presented.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants established sufficient grounds for review, including discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate any of the statutory grounds for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that the issues raised by the appellants, including alleged failure by the trial court to consider certain affidavit evidence and the question of their dependency, were substantial matters suitable for appeal, not review. The court emphasized that review is only available for patent errors, discovery of new evidence not previously available with due diligence, or other sufficient reasons analogous to these. The appellants did not show discovery of new evidence, any error apparent on the face of the record, or any other...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs of the appeal.