[2011] KEHC 2523 (KLR)
The court found that while the applicants' counsel failed to attend the hearing at the allocated time, the applicants themselves had properly instructed their counsel and were present in the morning when the matter was scheduled. The court was not convinced by the excuse provided by counsel regarding the process...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2523 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Gordon Waswa Munjuma; Plaintiff: John Simiyu Munjuma; Defendant: Wilberforce Maina Mutende; Defendant: Emmanuel Otiangala t/a Kuronya Auctioneers
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 31 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Dismissed Application
- Outcome
- Application for reinstatement allowed; application dated 7th May 2009 reinstated; costs of the application to be borne personally by applicants' counsel.
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Application, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Mistake of Counsel, Costs Orders
- 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
Gordon Waswa Munjuma
Plaintiff
John Simiyu Munjuma
Plaintiff
Wilberforce Maina Mutende
Defendant
Emmanuel Otiangala t/a Kuronya Auctioneers
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Dismissed Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application dismissed for non-attendance should be reinstated.
- 2 Whether the absence of counsel was justified and if the applicants should be penalized for their counsel's mistake.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the application for reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the applicants' counsel failed to attend the hearing at the allocated time, the applicants themselves had properly instructed their counsel and were present in the morning when the matter was scheduled. The court was not convinced by the excuse provided by counsel regarding the process server, noting that arrangements should have been made in advance. However, applying the principle that litigants should not be penalized for the mistakes of their advocates, the court exercised its discretion to reinstate the application in the interests of justice. To balance the equities, the court ordered that the applicants' counsel personally bear the costs of the...
Court Disposition
Application for reinstatement allowed; application dated 7th May 2009 reinstated; costs of the application to be borne personally by applicants' counsel.
Orders
- The application dated 7th May 2009 is hereby reinstated.
- The counsel for the applicants, Mr. Joseph W. Sichangi, shall personally meet the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT BUNGOMA
CIVIL SUIT NO.31 OF 2009
GORDON WASWA MUNJUMA …...........................………. 1ST PLAINTIFF
JOHN SIMIYU MUNJUMA…............................………. 2ND PLAINTIFF
~VRS~
WILBERFORCE MAINA MUTENDE……….........................…. 1ST DEFENDANT
EMMANUEL OTIANGALA
t/a KURONYA AUCTIONEERS……..........................……. 2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The Applicants/Plaintiffs in their application dated 12/07/2010 prays for orders for reinstatement of their application dated 7th May 2009. The application was opposed by the Respondents/Defendants through an affidavit sworn by their counsel Mr. Simiyu Makokha. Parties herein agreed to have the application heard through the affidavits.
The facts leading to this application are that the Applicants filed an application dated 07/05/2009. It was fixed for hearing on 07/07/2010. When it was called out in the morning hours, the counsels for both parties were present. Due to pressure of work the application was given time allocation being 2. 00 p.m in the afternoon. At 2. 00 p.m the court and the Respondents’ counsel Mr. Makokha were ready to proceed. Mr. Sichangi for the Applicants was not present. The court waited until 2. 40 p.m when the file was called out. The Respondents and their counsel were not present. The application was then dismissed for non-attendance.
In the supporting affidavit, Mr. Sichangi depones that he was under the impression that the process server was required in court during the hearing of the application. He therefore went looking for the process server and delayed. The first Defendant and his counsel Mr. Makokha in their affidavits states that he called Mr. Sichangi at around 2. 00 p.m and told him to come to court because the court was ready. Mr. Sichangi did not turn up resulting in the court dismissing the matter for non-attendance at 2. 40 p.m.
In the morning when the application came up for hearing, none of the parties mentioned that they required the presence of the process server. Even assuming the process server’s presence was required, arrangements ought to have been made earlier for him to be in court by 2. 00 p.m. for Mr. Sichangi to say that“he was under the impression that the process server was required in court,” is in my considered opinion just an excuse for his absence or lateness to attend court. The court accommodated Mr. Sichangi for forty (40) minutes which was too much of judicial time. The counsel’s office is situated in Bungoma town and he had no good reason to fail to organize himself for the hearing of the application. I am not convinced that the counsel’s absence from court was justified.
I remind myself that a party shall not punished for a mistake or negligence of his counsel. The Applicants had instructed the counsel and trusted him to argue the application on their behalf. The counsel was in court in the morning and this gave the Applicants’ assurance that they had nothing to worry about. The counsel was present when the matter was slated for 2. 00 p.m. The counsel was expected to attend court on time which he failed to do. For the sake of the Applicants, I allow this application and order that the counsel Mr. Joseph W. Sichangi meets the costs of this application personally.
The application dated 7th May 2009 is hereby reinstated.
…………………………..
F. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
Ruling delivered this 8th day of June, 2011 in the presence of Mr. Onchiri for the Plaintiffs and Mr. Makokha for the Defendants.
…………………….
F. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE