[2022] KEELC 714 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record that would justify review of the dismissal order. The record did not show any direction by the court to await the outcome of the application dated 29/10/2014. The application was dismissed for want of prosecution...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 714 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samwel Naimodu Leteipa; Respondent: Joseph Lekishon Kaelo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 2 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MN Kullow
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Stay of Execution, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- 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
Samwel Naimodu Leteipa
Applicant
Joseph Lekishon Kaelo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review of the dismissal order.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the orders made on 29/10/2014.
- 3 Whether the application to review and set aside the dismissal order is merited.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record that would justify review of the dismissal order. The record did not show any direction by the court to await the outcome of the application dated 29/10/2014. The application was dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay, and the applicant did not provide sufficient grounds for review or reinstatement. Consequently, the application for review and stay of execution was found to be unmerited and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 9/4/2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA
AT NAROK
ELC MISC NO. 2 OF 2018
SAMWEL NAIMODU LETEIPA......APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
JOSEPH LEKISHON KAELO....RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The appellant/applicant heard by a Notice of Motion dated 9/4/2019 brought under order 1A, B 63 (e) and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act sough for an order of stay of execution of the orders made on 29/10/2014 and further orders to Review and set aside the order dismissing the appellant’s application dated 29/10/2014. The application is based on the grounds that there is an error appeared on the record since the parties were to await the outcome of the application dated 29/10/2014.
2. The application was supported by the affidavit in application in which states that in his Notice of motion dated 29/10/2014 he was seeking leave of the Honourable court to lodge an Appeal out of time against a Decree that was issued in Narok CMCC No. 181 of 2007 and further that the respondent has filed an application seeking the dismissal of the Notice of motion dated 29/10/2014 however, the court dismissed the said application and he thus file the instant application to have the order of dismissal Revised and set aside.
3. The application was opposed by the respondent by way of a replying affidavit. The respondent deponed that the application dated 29/10/2014 and that of 9/4/2019 were both dismissed and that the applicant have not demonstrated that they are willing to deposit the decretal sum of kshs. 1,185,125 and that the instant application is only meant to obstruct the respondent from enjoying the fruits of his Judgment.
4. I have considered the application and the replying affidavit opposing to the same and the respondent’s submissions, this being an application for Review of the orders of the court, the ground upon which such an order can be made is not settled a party must show that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The applicant contended that the error that us apparent in that the court delivered a Ruling dismissing his application whereas it was to wait for the outcome of the Notice of motion dated 29/10/2014. I have perused the record and I find that no such direction were given by the court. In any event the applicant application was filed on 29/10/2014 and since the court felt there was an inordinate delay in the procedure of the said application. The same was dismissed for want of prosecution and I thus, find that the applicant has not demonstrated the need to review the orders in the ruling delivered on 14/2/2019 and the upshot of the above is that the instant application is unmerited and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
DELIVERED SIGNED AND DATED AT MIGORI THIS 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 VIA EMAIL.
MOHAMED N. KULLOW
JUDGE