[2017] KEHC 9849 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 9849 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had not met the threshold for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as he failed to demonstrate discovery of new and important evidence, any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The court noted that the applicant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 9849 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Michael Mwasa Kilonzo; Respondent: Patrick Kimathi Muchena t/a Arimi Kimathi & Co. Advocates
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
24 January 2017
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 483 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Vesting Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review of Orders, Public Auction Procedure, Vesting Orders, Execution of Decrees
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Review of Orders Public Auction Procedure Vesting Orders Execution of Decrees

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Mwasa Kilonzo

Applicant

Patrick Kimathi Muchena t/a Arimi Kimathi & Co. Advocates

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Vesting Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review of the vesting order granted on 9th June 2016.
  2. 2 Whether the public auction of the suit property was conducted in compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules and Auctioneers Rules.
  3. 3 Whether failure to serve requisite notices invalidated the sale and the vesting order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not met the threshold for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as he failed to demonstrate discovery of new and important evidence, any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The court noted that the applicant did not seek to set aside the sale, nor did he join the auctioneer to the proceedings, despite alleging irregularities in the auction process. The existence of a consent order permitting sale upon default was acknowledged, and the applicant admitted default. The court held that the alleged procedural irregularities in the auction did not, in the absence of a proper application...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 21st June 2016 for review of the vesting order is dismissed.
  • The respondents are awarded the costs of the application.