[2017] KEHC 788 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 788 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's counsel's failure to attend court was not deliberate but was occasioned by an encounter with NTSA personnel, which caused a delay. The court took judicial notice of the regular presence of NTSA along the route and accepted the explanation and apology. The court held that it would...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 788 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Directline Assuarance Company Limited; Defendant: Victor Ezra Osewe Mak’Osewe
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 6 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Application
Outcome
application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application reinstated
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Reinstatement of Application, Non Attendance, Want of Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Orders Reinstatement of Application Non Attendance Want of Prosecution

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Directline Assuarance Company Limited

Plaintiff

Victor Ezra Osewe Mak’Osewe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Application

  1. 1 Whether the court should set aside the dismissal order made for non-attendance and reinstate the application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's counsel's failure to attend court was deliberate or excusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's counsel's failure to attend court was not deliberate but was occasioned by an encounter with NTSA personnel, which caused a delay. The court took judicial notice of the regular presence of NTSA along the route and accepted the explanation and apology. The court held that it would be unjust to let the client suffer for counsel's excusable mistake. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order and reinstated the application for hearing.

Court Disposition

application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application reinstated

Orders

  • The orders dismissing the application dated 16th May 2017 are set aside.
  • The application dated 16th May 2017 is reinstated for hearing.