[2020] KEELC 2175 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 2175 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant failed to file submissions as required for the application dated 10/9/2019, resulting in its dismissal for want of prosecution. The court held that the advocate's mistake in misdiarizing the ruling date did not constitute sufficient grounds for review or reinstatement, especially...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 2175 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Grace Zakayo Linyamoi; Defendant: Wilson Lonapa
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Land Case 162 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Dismissal Order
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Court Orders Dismissal for Want of Prosecution 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Zakayo Linyamoi

Plaintiff

Wilson Lonapa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Dismissal Order

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has established sufficient grounds for review of the court's order dismissing the application dated 10/9/2019.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to file submissions due to advocate's mistake constitutes a valid reason for review or reinstatement of the dismissed application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant failed to file submissions as required for the application dated 10/9/2019, resulting in its dismissal for want of prosecution. The court held that the advocate's mistake in misdiarizing the ruling date did not constitute sufficient grounds for review or reinstatement, especially in the absence of any submissions, draft or otherwise, or an express prayer for extension of time. The court emphasized that there was no material before it to enable consideration of the application on its merits, and thus, the application for review lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 20/12/2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.