[2014] KEHC 4369 (KLR)
The court found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in its ruling dated 9/3/2012. The judge held that the ruling was considered and that any alleged errors were not self-evident but would require argument, thus falling outside the scope of review. The proper remedy for the applicant, if...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4369 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Makueni Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: David Mbaluto Kimeu; Interested Party: Filbert Nthekani Kimeu; Ex Parte Applicant: Kiio Yumby Mbululu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 159 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the interested parties
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Error Apparent on Record, Land Disputes Tribunal Jurisdiction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
Makueni Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
David Mbaluto Kimeu
Interested Party
Filbert Nthekani Kimeu
Interested Party
Kiio Yumby Mbululu
Ex Parte Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the ruling dated 9/3/2012.
- 2 Whether the application for review meets the threshold under the law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in its ruling dated 9/3/2012. The judge held that the ruling was considered and that any alleged errors were not self-evident but would require argument, thus falling outside the scope of review. The proper remedy for the applicant, if dissatisfied with the conclusions of law or evidence, would be to file an appeal rather than seek review. The application for review therefore failed to meet the legal threshold and was dismissed with costs to the interested parties.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the interested parties
Orders
- The application dated 18/4/2012 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the interested parties.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 159 OF 2006
REPUBLIC …………………………..……………………………………. APPLICANT
AGAINST
MAKUENI LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL …………………………… RESPONDENT
AND
DAVID MBALUTO KIMEU
FILBERT NTHEKANI KIMEU ………………………… INTERESTED PARTIES
KIIO YUMBYA MBULU ……………………………………………. EX PARTEAPPLICANT
R U L I N G
The application dated 18/4/2012 seeks orders that this court do review its ruling/orders dated 9/3/2012.
According to the affidavit in support sworn by the Applicant, there is an error apparent on the face of the record when the Judge found that there was a consent recorded on 24/07/2005 to withdraw the suit with costs in cause.
The application is opposed as per the replying affidavit sworn on 9/10/12 by the Interested Parties. It is contended that there is no error apparent on the record in the ruling dated 9/3/2012 and urged the court to dismiss the application.
I have considered the ruling in question. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. The Hon. Judge gave a considered ruling. If there are any erroneous conclusions of law or evidence, that is not a ground for review but a ground for appeal. (See for example, Francis Origo & Another –vs- Jacob Kumali Mungala (Eldoret H.C.C.A No. 10 of 1980).
Consequently, the application fails with costs to the Interested Parties.
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 26thday of June2014.
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE