[2005] KEHC 79 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 79 (KLR)

The court found that the application for review was fatally defective due to the applicant's failure to extract and attach the formal order made on 23.2.2000, as well as the inordinate delay in bringing the application. Additionally, the supporting affidavit did not disclose any of the grounds required under Order 44 Rule 1, such as sufficient reason or cause for review. The cumulative effect of these procedural and substantive deficiencies led the court to conclude that the application lacked merit and should be dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 79 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Zablon Libea Zebeti; Defendant: La Source Development
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 October 2005
Case Number
Civil Case 126 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Security for Costs Order
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Review of Court Orders, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Review of Court Orders Delay in Prosecution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zablon Libea Zebeti

Plaintiff

La Source Development

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Security for Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds for review of the court order requiring deposit of security for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in seeking review was justified.
  3. 3 Whether the application for review complied with procedural requirements under Order 44.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for review was fatally defective due to the applicant's failure to extract and attach the formal order made on 23.2.2000, as well as the inordinate delay in bringing the application. Additionally, the supporting affidavit did not disclose any of the grounds required under Order 44 Rule 1, such as sufficient reason or cause for review. The cumulative effect of these procedural and substantive deficiencies led the court to conclude that the application lacked merit and should be dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs to the respondent.