[2018] KEELC 3620 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 3620 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants provided an explanation for their failure to prosecute the application, attributing it to errors by their advocates and unavoidable personal circumstances. However, since the registration of the charge outside the statutory period directly affects the 2nd applicant, the court held...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 3620 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited; Applicant: Kijege Holdings Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Motion
Outcome
Application for reinstatement not immediately granted; service ordered on 2nd applicant for hearing.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Registration of Charge, Extension of Time, Company Security Interests, Procedural Default, Reinstatement of Application
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Registration of Charge Extension of Time Company Security Interests Procedural Default Reinstatement of Application

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited

Applicant

Kijege Holdings Limited

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Motion

  1. 1 Whether the court should review and set aside the dismissal order of 21.9.2017 and reinstate the applicants' Notice of Motion dated 18.5.2017.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient cause for non-prosecution of the application.
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd applicant must be served and heard before substantive orders are granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants provided an explanation for their failure to prosecute the application, attributing it to errors by their advocates and unavoidable personal circumstances. However, since the registration of the charge outside the statutory period directly affects the 2nd applicant, the court held that the 2nd applicant must be properly served and given an opportunity to be heard before any substantive orders can be granted. The court therefore ordered service on the 2nd applicant and set a date for further hearing or directions, declining to immediately reinstate or grant the substantive orders sought without hearing all affected parties.

Court Disposition

Application for reinstatement not immediately granted; service ordered on 2nd applicant for hearing.

Orders

  • The 2nd applicant be properly served with this application within 10 days.
  • The 2nd applicant to appear in court on 23rd May, 2018 for hearing or directions regarding the application.