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

Wafulai v Lusindalo (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 102 of 2013) [2024] KEELC 3413 (KLR) (8 April 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KEELC 3413 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
3413
Citation
[2024] KEELC 3413 (KLR)
Decided
8 April 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil SuitPostureAppeal from a previous judgmentCoramDAVID KAYAJA WAFULAI, FO NYAGAKA, Mativo
Holding

The court found the application merited and granted the plaintiff's request to review the court's previous judgment.

Facts

The plaintiff, David Kayajaa Wafulai, filed a civil suit against the defendant, Joseph Khalea Lusindalo, regarding a mutation form. The plaintiff sought a review of the court's previous judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is merited
  2. Who should bear the costs of the application

Reasoning

The court ruled that the plaintiff's application was merited because there was a mistake on the face of the record, and the plaintiff was aggrieved by the court's previous order.

Outcome

The court granted the plaintiff's application to review the previous judgment.

Orders

  • To review the court's previous judgment to the extent that no new mutation forms were drawn by the Surveyor in charge of Trans Nzoia County.
  • To give effect to the mutation form complete contemplated in paragraph (b) of the judgment.
  • To issue further orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice.
  • To provide for the costs of the application.

Remedies

  • To review the court's previous judgment.
  • To give effect to the mutation form complete contemplated in paragraph (b) of the judgment.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Civil Procedure Rules
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