[2018] KEELC 4207 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4207 (KLR)

The court found that the preliminary objection leading to the dismissal of the suit was filed while the Nkubu case was still pending, and that the withdrawal of the Nkubu suit occurred after the present suit had already been filed. The court had already considered the possibility of the withdrawal in its earlier...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 4207 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Rosaria Kirianki Mbaya; Defendant: Romano Kigunda M'Ikiugu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 41 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application to Review and Set Aside Dismissal Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Dismissal of Suit, Withdrawal of Suit, Fresh Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Court Orders Dismissal of Suit Withdrawal of Suit Fresh Evidence

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosaria Kirianki Mbaya

Plaintiff

Romano Kigunda M'Ikiugu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application to Review and Set Aside Dismissal Order

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has established sufficient grounds for review and setting aside of the dismissal order dated 18.12.2017.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged new evidence (withdrawal order in the Nkubu case) constitutes a new material fact justifying review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the preliminary objection leading to the dismissal of the suit was filed while the Nkubu case was still pending, and that the withdrawal of the Nkubu suit occurred after the present suit had already been filed. The court had already considered the possibility of the withdrawal in its earlier ruling. Therefore, the certified copy of the withdrawal order did not constitute new material evidence that would justify a review or setting aside of the dismissal order. The application for review was thus unmerited and dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 19.1.2018 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • This file is marked as closed.