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

Omar v Rotich & 3 others (Environment & Land Case E15 of 2021) [2023] KEELC 19977 (KLR) (22 September 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEELC 19977 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
19977
Citation
[2023] KEELC 19977 (KLR)
Decided
22 September 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeReview of Court OrderPostureApplication for review of court orderCoramFM NJOROGE
Holding

The court can review its order for any sufficient reason, and Omar has demonstrated a sufficient reason to vary the orders issued on 24/04/2023.

Facts

Omar Mohamed Omar purchased land from Francis Bor Changwony in 2004. In 2023, Omar sought to produce a certified copy of grant number IR 4795 for LR No. 13287/34, which was previously issued to the vendor.

Issues

  1. Whether the court can review its order on the grounds of new evidence or apparent error
  2. Whether Omar has demonstrated sufficient cause for the court to vary the orders issued on 24/04/2023

Reasoning

The court can only review its orders upon discovery of new and important evidence or an apparent error on the face of the record. Omar has now provided a certified copy of the document, which the court finds sufficient reason to vary the orders.

Outcome

The application is granted.

Orders

  • The court reviews its order and varies the order to allow the production of the certified copy of grant number IR 47995 for LR No. 13287/34.

Remedies

  • The court allows the production of the certified copy of grant number IR 47995 for LR No. 13287/34.

Authorities cited

Legislation (4)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Evidence Act
  • Constitution of Kenya
Cases cited (3)
  • Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others
  • Shanzu Investments Limited v Commissioner for Lands
  • Canon Assurance (K) Ltd v Ali Hamadi Mwagude & 4 Others
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case