[2019] KEHC 8854 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 8854 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs made genuine and active efforts to prosecute the suit within the timelines set by the court, but were prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond their control, such as the court not sitting and the matter being taken out of the causelist. The evidence showed that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 8854 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Bernard Njenga Gachamaru; Plaintiff: Catherine Mukami Njenga; Defendant: Mohammed Elias; Defendant: Samson Marita; Defendant: George Moseti
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 256 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; suit reinstated with conditions.
Judges
LM Njuguna
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Discretion, Reinstatement of Suit
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Orders Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Judicial Discretion Reinstatement of Suit

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

Bernard Njenga Gachamaru

Plaintiff

Catherine Mukami Njenga

Plaintiff

Mohammed Elias

Defendant

Samson Marita

Defendant

George Moseti

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have provided sufficient reasons to set aside the dismissal order of 1st November, 2017.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit was excusable and beyond the plaintiffs' control.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require reinstatement of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs made genuine and active efforts to prosecute the suit within the timelines set by the court, but were prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond their control, such as the court not sitting and the matter being taken out of the causelist. The evidence showed that the plaintiffs' advocate sought hearing dates and complied with pre-trial directions. The court held that the discretion to set aside its own orders should be exercised to prevent injustice, especially where the delay is not attributable to the party seeking relief. In the interests of justice, and given the nature of the suit as a test case, the court allowed the application to set aside...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; suit reinstated with conditions.

Orders

  • The order made on 1st November, 2017 is set aside and the suit is admitted for hearing.
  • The plaintiffs shall prosecute the suit within 90 days from the date of this ruling, failing which the suit shall stand dismissed.