[2018] KEELC 4272 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4272 (KLR)

The court held that it could not entertain the applicant's motion to review, vary, or set aside the dismissal order because the applicant was in contempt of a prior court order requiring payment of adjournment fees, which had not been complied with. Furthermore, the court found that once a suit is dismissed under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 4272 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chairman Western Province Provincial Land Appeals Committee; Interested Party: Felister Andati Odera; Applicant: Euphamia N. Makokha
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 242 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion to Review, Vary And/or Set Aside Dismissal Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
SN Mukunya
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Contempt of Court, Land Disputes Tribunal, Review of Dismissal Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Judicial Review Dismissal for Non Attendance Contempt of Court Land Disputes Tribunal Review of Dismissal Orders

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Chairman Western Province Provincial Land Appeals Committee

Respondent

Felister Andati Odera

Interested Party

Euphamia N. Makokha

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion to Review, Vary And/or Set Aside Dismissal Order

  1. 1 Whether the court can review, vary or set aside its own dismissal order made under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to relief despite being in contempt of a prior court order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it could not entertain the applicant's motion to review, vary, or set aside the dismissal order because the applicant was in contempt of a prior court order requiring payment of adjournment fees, which had not been complied with. Furthermore, the court found that once a suit is dismissed under Order 17(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution, the court becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to review or set aside its own dismissal order; the only remedy available to the applicant is to appeal. Consequently, the application was found to be without merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to review, vary, or set aside the dismissal order is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.