[2002] KEHC 1275 (KLR)

[2002] KEHC 1275 (KLR)

The court found that the application was fundamentally incompetent because it invoked a non-existent rule (Order IXB Rule XLIV) under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules. Furthermore, the application failed to annex the decree or order sought to be reviewed, which is a mandatory requirement in law for such...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] KEHC 1275 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Trust Bank Limited; Defendant: Geoffrey Makana Asanyo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 118 of 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Stay, Review, and Setting Aside of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
T Mbaluto
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Stay of Execution, Setting Aside Judgment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Review of Judgment Stay of Execution Setting Aside Judgment

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

Trust Bank Limited

Plaintiff

Geoffrey Makana Asanyo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Stay, Review, and Setting Aside of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the application for review and stay of execution is competent in law.
  2. 2 Whether the application properly invoked the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to annex the decree or order sought to be reviewed is fatal to the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was fundamentally incompetent because it invoked a non-existent rule (Order IXB Rule XLIV) under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules. Furthermore, the application failed to annex the decree or order sought to be reviewed, which is a mandatory requirement in law for such applications. Without the extracted and annexed decree or order, there was nothing before the court to review. These procedural defects rendered the application misconceived and incompetent, necessitating its dismissal with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.