[2019] KEELC 4384 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 4384 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants' advocate was present in court on the dates when the matter was set for filing submissions and when the judgment date was fixed, as well as when judgment was delivered. The claim that the advocate was not served with hearing dates was therefore unfounded. The court held that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 4384 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Patrick N. Machika; Respondent: Benardo Likhako Makhuyi; Respondent: Bonface Likobe
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 12 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Set Aside or Review Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Review of Judgment, Service of Process, Right to Be Heard
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Setting Aside Judgment Review of Judgment Service of Process Right to Be Heard

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick N. Machika

Appellant

Benardo Likhako Makhuyi

Respondent

Bonface Likobe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Set Aside or Review Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the judgment delivered on 20th June 2018 should be set aside or reviewed due to alleged lack of service on the applicants or their advocates.
  2. 2 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review of the judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the application amounts to an abuse of the court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' advocate was present in court on the dates when the matter was set for filing submissions and when the judgment date was fixed, as well as when judgment was delivered. The claim that the advocate was not served with hearing dates was therefore unfounded. The court held that the application to set aside or review the judgment was not merited, as there was no error apparent on the face of the record and no denial of the right to be heard. The application was deemed an abuse of the court process and was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to set aside or review the judgment dated 20th June 2018 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.