[2008] KEHC 934 (KLR)
The court found that the dismissal of the applicants' application for non-attendance was occasioned by a mix-up in the registry's cause list, which was not attributable to any fault or negligence on the part of the applicants or their counsel. Recognizing that justice should not be defeated by procedural errors...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 934 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Daniel Ogol; Appellant: Joseph Sang; Appellant: Gordon Opiyo; Respondent: Joel Ouma Muma
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 31 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Motion
- Outcome
- Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application and interim orders reinstated.
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Orders, Reinstatement of Suit, Non Attendance, Procedural Irregularity
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Daniel Ogol
Appellant
Joseph Sang
Appellant
Gordon Opiyo
Appellant
Joel Ouma Muma
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dismissal of the applicant's application for non-attendance should be set aside due to a registry error.
- 2 Whether the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 18th January 2007 should be reinstated for hearing.
- 3 Whether interim orders previously granted should be reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the dismissal of the applicants' application for non-attendance was occasioned by a mix-up in the registry's cause list, which was not attributable to any fault or negligence on the part of the applicants or their counsel. Recognizing that justice should not be defeated by procedural errors beyond the parties' control, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order, reinstate the applicants' Notice of Motion for hearing, and restore the interim orders previously granted. The court emphasized that the overriding objective of the procedural rules is to facilitate the just determination of cases, and that technical errors by the registry should not...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application and interim orders reinstated.
Orders
- The order made on 31st July 2007 dismissing the applicant’s application for non-attendance is set aside.
- The Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 18th January 2007 is reinstated for further hearing interpartes.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 31 of 2007
DANIEL OGOL………………………………..1ST APPLICANT/APPELLANT
JOSEPH SANG……………………………….2ND APPLICANT/APPELLANT
GORDON OPIYO……………………………..3RD APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
JOEL OUMA MUMA………………...…………………………RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
Before me is a Notice of Motion expressed to be brought under Order L Rules 1 and 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act in which the applicant is seeking orders that the order made on 31st July 2007 dismissing the applicant’s application for non-attendance herein be set aside and the Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 18th January 2007 be reinstated for further hearing interpartes and that the court on granting prayer 4 above be pleased to reinstate the interim orders which had been granted to the applicants by this Honourable Court on 18th January 2007 and which were in force pending further hearing and determination of the appellant’s Notice of Motion.
The application is based on the ground that the application dated 18th January 2007 which was part-heard before the Hon. Osiemo J and which had been properly listed before the said Judge at 2. 30 p.m. on 31st July 2007 as per the cause list was inadvertently placed before the Hon. Mr. Justice Aganyanya whereby the court dismissed the same for non-attendance and that the above error/mistake occurred through no fault on the part of the counsel for the applicants and that the same arose due to a mix up in the numbering of cases in the daily cause list by the registry.
The application is also supported by an affidavit sworn by counsel for the applicant. I agree that was the position. There was a mix-up in the numbering of the cases in the cause list and the matter which was part-heard before me at 2. 30 pm of that day was inadvertently placed before Aganyanya J. in the morning and hence dismissed for non-attendance.
The applicant’s application is therefore allowed in terms of prayer 4, 5 and 6 of the Notice of Motion dated 3rd August 2007. Costs will be costs in the application.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 23rd day of May 2008.
J. L. A. OSIEMO
JUDGE