[2020] KEHC 6343 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 6343 (KLR)

The court found that, in the interest of justice, the plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to be heard on the application to strike out the plaint before the court delivers its ruling. The court emphasized that the right to be heard is a fundamental principle and that denying the plaintiff this opportunity...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 6343 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Francis Ndegwa Muhoro; Defendant: Ahmednasir M. Abdullahi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 91 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Defer Delivery of Ruling
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Right to Be Heard, Non Attendance of Counsel, Application to Strike Out, Adjournment, Costs Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Right to Be Heard Non Attendance of Counsel Application to Strike Out Adjournment Costs Orders

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

Francis Ndegwa Muhoro

Plaintiff

Ahmednasir M. Abdullahi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Defer Delivery of Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the court should defer delivery of its ruling on the defendant's application to strike out the plaint, which was heard in the absence of the plaintiff's counsel.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to be heard before the ruling is delivered.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs occasioned by the non-attendance of the plaintiff's counsel.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, in the interest of justice, the plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to be heard on the application to strike out the plaint before the court delivers its ruling. The court emphasized that the right to be heard is a fundamental principle and that denying the plaintiff this opportunity would be unjust. However, the court also held that it was fair for the plaintiff to bear the costs occasioned by the non-attendance of their counsel, which led to the court proceeding in their absence. Accordingly, the application to defer the ruling was allowed, and both parties were directed to fix a suitable date for the hearing, with costs awarded to the defendant for the...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The application to defer delivery of the ruling is allowed.
  • Both counsel to fix a convenient date for hearing the application to strike out the plaint.