Dormel Gowns Limited v Peter Mbugua Kimani [2021] KEELC 3393 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to reopen a decided land case because the new letter the applicant produced did not actually prove what she claimed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established discovery of new and important matter or evidence under Order 45 rule 1
The application fails because the AFC letter does not confirm payment of the loan by S.W. Waweru & Co. Advocates and thus is not new and important evidence
The court noted that the judgment had found the full consideration was not paid to the vendor. The letter from the Agricultural Finance Corporation, signed by John Kithinji for the Managing Director, did not state the amount of the loan paid nor confirm that payment was made by the advocate. It only confirmed the account was settled and security documents released on an undertaking in December 1992. It therefore did not meet the review threshold.
Legal principles established
#- A document that does not confirm the fact sought to be proved does not constitute new and important evidence warranting review under Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 18th September 2020 is dismissed with costs to the defendant/respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1, 1A, 3, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dormel Gowns Limited v Peter Mbugua Kimani [2021] KEELC 3393 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 18th September 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3393/eng@2021-04-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.