Achal Sukhbinder Singh & 2 others v Chandrakant Gor & another [2018] KEELC 3922 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court threw out a request to reopen a 2006 land judgment because it came nine years late with no new evidence or legal mistake shown.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the review application satisfied the grounds in Order 45 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
The application failed; no new matter, no error apparent on the face of the record, and no sufficient reason was established
The court applied section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1(1), as explained in the cited authorities. The application was generalized and did not identify which ground of review it invoked. The ruling of 31st October, 2013 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 160 of 2009 was delivered seven years after the judgment under review and so could not be new matter. No apparent error or mistake on the face of the judgment was demonstrated.
Whether alleged impossibility of executing the decree and alleged fraud by the plaintiffs amounted to sufficient reason for review
They did not; the ruling relied on was not made in this suit and there was no evidence of fraud or illegality in the subdivision
The court noted that the decree was made in favour of the plaintiffs, who were not complaining and contended it had been executed. The ruling of 31st October, 2013 relied on by the defendants was not issued in this suit and did not relate to it. No evidence was placed before the court showing that the alleged subdivision of the suit property carried out by the plaintiffs was illegal or fraudulent.
Whether the delay of nine years in bringing the application defeated the review
The application was brought after inordinate and unexplained delay and failed on that account as well
The judgment sought to be reviewed was delivered on 30th October, 2006 and the application was filed on 7th December, 2015, approximately nine years later. The authorities cited required that an application for review be made without unreasonable delay. No explanation for the delay was offered by the defendants.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for review must place the application clearly within the grounds set out in Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and demonstrate discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, without unreasonable delay
- A decision rendered after the judgment sought to be reviewed cannot constitute new and important matter or evidence that could not have been placed before the court when the judgment was made
- Inordinate and unexplained delay is an independent ground for refusing an application for review
Court orders
#- 1.The defendant's Notice of Motion application dated 7th December, 2015 seeking review of the judgment of 30th October, 2006 and the decree issued pursuant thereto was dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiffs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Achal Sukhbinder Singh & 2 others v Chandrakant Gor & another [2018] KEELC 3922 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3922/eng@2018-03-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.