Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the extract (Notice of Motion dated 25th September, 2020)· [2022] KEELC 1526 (KLR)

Justine Magare Bosire v Isaac Omboga [2022] KEELC 1526 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 February 2022
2,133 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff/Applicant moved the Environment and Land Court at Kisii by Notice of Motion dated 25th September, 2020 seeking review of orders issued on 30th July, 2019 in respect of an application dated 29th July, 2019, in which the court had granted prayer 2 (costs) instead of prayer 1 (eviction of the Respondent from LR. No. KISII WANJARE/BOKEIRE/4414). The Applicant also sought police security for the eviction and demolition of illegal structures. The Respondent opposed through Grounds of Opposition, contending the application was fatally defective for failure to annex the order sought to be reviewed, and that eviction would prejudice his pending appeal, Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2019 at Kisumu. The court framed two issues: whether the threshold for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 was met, and whether non-attachment of the order was fatal. Holding that the grant of the wrong prayer was an error apparent on the face of the record, and that Order 45 rule 1(2) permits a non-appealing party to seek review notwithstanding a pending appeal, the court found the review merited. It further held, following Sheikh Ali Taib v George Ellam Wekesa, that Order 45 contains no requirement to annex the order. The court reviewed its orders, ordered the Respondent's immediate eviction, directed the OCS Gesonso Police Station to provide security during the eviction and demolition, and awarded costs of the application to the Applicant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the threshold for review under Order 45 Rule 1 was met

Holding

Yes - the mix-up in granting prayer 2 instead of prayer 1 of the application dated 29th July, 2019 constituted an error apparent on the face of the record; the pendency of the Respondent's appeal did not bar review, and no irreparable loss was demonstrated

Reasoning

Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act confers power to review while Order 45 Rule 1 defines the grounds, including error apparent on the face of the record. The court found the granting of the wrong prayer was such an error. Order 45 rule 1(2) permits a non-appealing party to seek review notwithstanding a pending appeal by the other party, and the Respondent failed to demonstrate loss not remediable by costs, since no stay of execution was in place.

p. 2
02

Whether failure to attach the order sought to be reviewed is fatal

Holding

No - Order 45 does not expressly require annexure of the order; the application is not fatally defective where the court can identify the decision complained of

Reasoning

The court held Order 45 contains no express requirement that the order or decree be annexed. Relying on Sheikh Ali Taib v George Ellam Wekesa, the Court of Appeal's position that a review application is not fatally defective where the party can direct the court's attention to the part of the ruling complained of was adopted, consistent with Article 159's command against undue regard to technicalities.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who is not appealing may apply for review notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by another party
  • Failure to attach the order or decree sought to be reviewed does not render an application for review fatally defective

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the Respondent be evicted from the Applicant's land parcel LR. No. KISII WANJARE/BOKEIRE/4414 with immediate effect
  2. 2.The OCS Gesonso Police Station is hereby directed to provide security during the eviction and demolition of illegal structures on the Applicant's land parcel LR No. KISII WANJARE/BOKEIRE/4414
  3. 3.That costs of this application to be borne by the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 1
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159

Cases cited (6)

  • Sheikh Ali Taib v George Ellam Wekesa & another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Sadrudin Kurji & Another v. Shalimar Ltd & 2 Others
    CA No 64 of 2006
  • Stephen Munga Maingi v. The Government of the United States of America & Another
  • William Saina v. Joshua Cherutich
    HCCC No 259 of 2001 (OS)
  • Suleiman Murunga v. Nilestar Holdings Ltd & Another
    ELCC No. 1549 of 2013
  • Peter Kirika Githaiga & Another v Betty Rashid
    CA No. 210 of 2014
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Justine Magare Bosire v Isaac Omboga [2022] KEELC 1526 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the extract (Notice of Motion dated 25th September, 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1526/eng@2022-02-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.