[2017] KEELC 438 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 438 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or any sufficient reason to warrant review of the ruling delivered on 29.06.17. The applicant's claim of illiteracy was not persuasive, as she had previously sought legal advice and participated in succession...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 438 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Suresh Kundan Wason; Defendant: Satish Kundan Wason
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 60 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Earlier Dismissal Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Revival of Suit, Succession and Estate, Error on Face of Record
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Review of Court Orders Revival of Suit Succession and Estate Error on Face of Record

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

Suresh Kundan Wason

Plaintiff

Satish Kundan Wason

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Earlier Dismissal Order

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established grounds for review of the court's ruling delivered on 29.06.17.
  2. 2 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's claim of illiteracy and risk of being rendered landless warrants review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or any sufficient reason to warrant review of the ruling delivered on 29.06.17. The applicant's claim of illiteracy was not persuasive, as she had previously sought legal advice and participated in succession proceedings. Granting the review would amount to the court sitting as an appellate forum over its own decision, which is not permissible under the law. Consequently, the application for review was found to be unmerited and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.