<div class="akn-div parties-listing">
<div class="akn-div parties-separator">Between</div>
<div class="akn-div party-listing">
<div class="akn-div party-name">Joel Aduma Ramogo</div>
<div class="akn-div dotted"> </div>
<div class="akn-div">1<sup class="akn-sup">st</sup> Plaintiff</div>
</div>
<div class="akn-div party-listing">
<div class="akn-div party-name">Mary Atieno Ondoro</div>
<div class="akn-div dotted"> </div>
<div class="akn-div">2<sup class="akn-sup">nd</sup> Plaintiff</div>
</div>
<div class="akn-div parties-separator">and</div>
<div class="akn-div party-listing">
<div class="akn-div party-name">Integrity Holdings Limited</div>
<div class="akn-div dotted"> </div>
<div class="akn-div">Defendant</div>
</div>
</div>
9.Suffice it to state that review jurisdiction is exercised on the basis of new and important matter or evidence which, on exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the impugned order or decree was made. Further, review jurisdiction is available for the purpose of correcting some mistakes or error apparent on the face of the record. Review jurisdiction is not available to an applicant who merely seeks to have a second biting at the cherry or who had the opportunity to avail all the necessary evidence but elected to be remiss.
10.In the application under consideration, the defendant had their requisite development plans [if any]. The law required them to submit the plans to the approving authority. Upon approval, the plans were required to be available to the general public, including the defendant who was the developer. It cannot, in the circumstances, be said that the defendant’s development plans are new evidence that the defendant could not produce upon exercise of due diligence during the hearing of the application that culminated in the impugned ruling.
11.The defendant contended that it did not have access to the plaintiff’s approved development plans. The defendant had the right to issue and serve a notice to the plaintiff to produce their approved development plans at the hearing of the application leading to the impugned ruling. They elected not to compel the plaintiff to produce their approved development plans. Secondly, the defendant was at liberty to procure copies of the plaintiff’s approved development plans from the approving authority. They elected not to do so. In the circumstances, I do not think the defendant exercised due diligence to access the plaintiff’s approved development plans.
12.The result is that the court is not satisfied that the defendant has met the criteria upon which our courts exercise review jurisdiction.
13.An equally important consideration is that the impugned orders were issued under Order 40 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules on 15/4/2021. It is now more than twelve months since the impugned orders were issued. The court has not been invited to extend the validity of the orders beyond the period of twelve months prescribed by the law.
14.The totality of the foregoing is that there is no merit in the notice of motiondated 11/5/2021. The same is rejected. The defendant shall bear costs of the application.