[2005] KEHC 789 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 789 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was properly served with the application dated 8/1/2001 and the hearing notice for the dismissal application. The evidence, including the affidavit of service and the advocate's stamp on the notice, demonstrated that service was effected. The applicant's failure to attend court on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 789 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Athman Ali Masha; Defendant: Idi Obrahim Ndegwa; Defendant: Industrial & Commercial Dev. Corporation; Defendant: Joel Titus Musya t/a Makuri Enterprises
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 319 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Dismissal, Service of Process, Inadvertence of Counsel
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Dismissal Service of Process Inadvertence of Counsel

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Athman Ali Masha

Plaintiff

Idi Obrahim Ndegwa

Defendant

Industrial & Commercial Dev. Corporation

Defendant

Joel Titus Musya t/a Makuri Enterprises

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order and Reinstate Suit

  1. 1 Whether the order dismissing the suit should be set aside and the suit reinstated.
  2. 2 Whether failure to attend court by the applicant's counsel was due to inadvertence or was deliberate.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was properly served with the application and hearing notice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was properly served with the application dated 8/1/2001 and the hearing notice for the dismissal application. The evidence, including the affidavit of service and the advocate's stamp on the notice, demonstrated that service was effected. The applicant's failure to attend court on 7/10/04 was not due to inadvertence or mistake but was a deliberate act, as the advocates chose not to attend on the basis that they believed the application did not exist. The court further noted that the applicant had not taken any action on the file for a prolonged period and that the attempt to amend the plaint was not in good faith. Consequently, the court held that there...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the suit is dismissed with costs.
  • Certified copies of the ruling and proceedings to be supplied upon payment of copying charges.