SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Mjanaheri Farm Limited v China Road and Bridge Corporation Hola Garsen Malindi Road Project [2022] KEELC 1024 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 1024 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1024
Citation
[2022] KEELC 1024 (KLR)
Decided
3 March 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeReview of JudgmentPostureApplication for review of Judgment
Holding

The court found that the application lacks merit and the Judgment is not subject to review.

Facts

The Plaintiff/Applicant sought to review a Judgment issued on May 8, 2015, where the Defendant/Respondent was ordered to restore the suit property within 90 days. Despite the Judgment, the Respondent failed to comply, leading the Applicant to seek costs and an alternative remedy.

Issues

  1. Whether the application falls under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules for review.
  2. Whether the court should have included an alternative order for restoration costs in the event of failure to restore the land.

Reasoning

The court ruled that the failure to comply with the Judgment is not a sufficient reason for review. The court emphasized that the court only grants prayers sought by the litigants and not what it thinks should have been pleaded. The court also stated that the error is not self-evident and cannot be corrected through review.

Outcome

The application for review is dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (3)
  • National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau
  • Coretec Systems & Solutions Ltd v Digital Divide Data Kenya Ltd
  • Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case