Search court decisions

…The plaintiff relies on the ground that there was discovery of new evidence which after due diligence could not be produced by him at the time the order was made.…

…According to the plaintiff, judgment was delivered on 15th February 2024, but prior to entry of judgment the plaintiff even after exercise of due diligence could not access the survey maps and documentations during that time…

…The application is premised on the grounds that the applicant’s previous counsel was not diligent enough in prosecution of the applicant’s case; that owing to lack of due diligence and/or negligence of the applicant’s previous…

…Terming the alleged gaps or irregularities in the court’s proceedings errors apparent in the court’s record and the lack of due diligence on the part of his sufficient grounds for reviewing and/or setting aside the judgment…

…He has not demonstrated whether he exercised due diligence, and that these documents were not within his knowledge at the time the judgment was delivered.…

…This means that at all material times, he knew of documents which he ought to have done due diligence to seek their production either from the makers or by issuing a Notice to produce.…

…The Plaintiff did not undertake reasonable due diligence in regard to review of this document. iii.   …

…The Plaintiff did not undertake reasonable due diligence to determine who had hired the security guards. iv.   …

…The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier.…

…The Applicants cannot therefore be heard to lament that they could not avail the said documents, even after applying due diligence. The Applicants are actually trying to re- argue their Application.…

…That there is discovery of new and important evidence which could not be ascertained earlier by the applicants despite due diligence.…

…diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason…

…The 2nd Defendant told the Court that it had advanced the loans after conducting due diligence which confirmed that the property is registered in the name of the 1st Defendant and that the same was free of any encumbrances…

…It was however clear to me that if any due diligence was done it was not as robust and scrupulous as the 2nd Defendant would want the Court to believe. 28.   Ms.…

…diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other…

…As clearly indicated in Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, review can only be based on the three conditions being discovery of new evidence that could not be availed even with exercise of due diligence, error apparent…

…The 1st Respondent argues that the Appellant, as a purchaser who claimed to have conducted due diligence before buying the land, had ample opportunity to uncover any anomalies regarding Agai Aboka’s estate during the original…

…The 1st Respondent counters that, as a purchaser of the land, the Applicant ought to have conducted comprehensive due diligence before the transaction and during the trial process. [25] The standard of “reasonable diligence…

…An applicant must establish: that there has been a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when…

…That there was discovery of new and important evidence or matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time the decree was passed or order made; ii.…

…On whether the 1st defendant conducted due diligence before the purchase of the suit property the plaintiff submits that whereas the 1st Defendant testified that he conducted his due diligence by evidence of a Search, due…

…The plaintiff submits that in the current times, it is not enough to rely on the Search as proof of having conducted due diligence.…

…(c) That there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by the plaintiff at the time when the order was made.…

…(e) That the Honourable Court did not consider a search issued from the Ministry of Lands dated 20 May 2014 as the plaintiffs after exercise of due diligence were not able to produce it in court.…

…is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due…

…diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other…

…diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other…

…In any event, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the purported evidence is in fact new or that it was previously unavailable despite the exercise of due diligence.…

…Further, it is contended that the documents sought to be introduced were always within the applicant's knowledge and could, with the exercise of due diligence, have been produced during the hearing. 4.…

…diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other…

…Drawing from the above provisions, it is evident that the following are the instances in which a court can review a decision: a) the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence…

…diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made.…

…It must be also new and important matter or evidence “which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made …” In the…

…Before a review is allowed on the discovery of new evidence, it must be established that the Applicant had acted with due diligence and that the existence of the evidence was not within his knowledge; where review was sought…

…is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due…

…diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other…

…The Plaintiff avers that the letter from the Chief could not have been obtained at the time of the hearing despite due diligence because the Chief was unwilling to get involved in the dispute that was at the time pending…

…The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier. h)    A mistake…