[2018] KEELC 563 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 563 (KLR)

The court found that the consent order adopted on 25th May, 2017 contained a clear error regarding the case number and date of registration of the prohibitory order, as evidenced by the land register. The respondent did not oppose the application, and the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for not filing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 563 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Wycliff Odhiambo Ombago; Applicant: Sylvester Onyango Ombago; Respondent: Housing Finance Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 57 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Consent Order
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Prohibitory Orders, Consent Orders, Land Title Registration, Review of Court Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Prohibitory Orders Consent Orders Land Title Registration Review of Court Orders

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

Wycliff Odhiambo Ombago

Applicant

Sylvester Onyango Ombago

Applicant

Housing Finance Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Consent Order

  1. 1 Whether the consent order adopted on 25th May, 2017 should be reviewed to correct the case number and date of registration of the prohibitory order.
  2. 2 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to review the consent order in a miscellaneous application rather than in the original suit file.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent order adopted on 25th May, 2017 contained a clear error regarding the case number and date of registration of the prohibitory order, as evidenced by the land register. The respondent did not oppose the application, and the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for not filing the application in the original suit file, which could not be traced. The court held that it was in the interests of justice to review and correct the consent order to reflect the accurate details, thereby enabling the applicants to properly register the order at the Lands Office. The application was therefore allowed as prayed.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The consent order adopted on 25th May, 2017 is reviewed to reflect the correct case number as High Court Civil Case No. 7 of 1977 and the correct date of registration as 14th September, 1977.