[2021] KEELC 4351 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 4351 (KLR)

The court found that the evidence the applicant sought to introduce was available at the time of the original hearing and that nothing prevented the applicant from presenting it then. The applicant failed to demonstrate that due diligence was exercised in obtaining and availing the documents to the court. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 4351 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Sutton Holdings Limited; Defendant: Eric Opon Nyamunga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 22 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Previous Dismissal Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, New Evidence, Due Diligence Requirement, Land Ownership Documents
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Court Orders New Evidence Due Diligence Requirement Land Ownership Documents

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sutton Holdings Limited

Plaintiff

Eric Opon Nyamunga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for review of the court's ruling under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence sought to be introduced constitutes new and important matter that could not have been produced with due diligence at the time of the original hearing.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant exercised due diligence in obtaining and presenting the new evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence the applicant sought to introduce was available at the time of the original hearing and that nothing prevented the applicant from presenting it then. The applicant failed to demonstrate that due diligence was exercised in obtaining and availing the documents to the court. The court emphasized that the opportunity to present all relevant evidence was provided during the hearing, and it would be irregular to introduce new evidence after the hearing had concluded. As such, the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, particularly the due diligence requirement. Consequently, the application for review...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is disallowed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.