[2021] KEELC 1061 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 1061 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's reason for failing to attend court—misplacing the notice and omitting to diarize the date—was not sufficient to justify setting aside the dismissal order. The court noted that there was inordinate delay between the dismissal on 2nd November 2018 and the filing of the application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 1061 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Hardy Development Company Ltd; Respondent: Hamisi Sheed
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 139 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Setting Aside Orders, Judicial Discretion, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Setting Aside Orders Judicial Discretion Delay in 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hardy Development Company Ltd

Applicant

Hamisi Sheed

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order

  1. 1 Whether the court should set aside or vary the dismissal order issued for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the application to set aside was excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the mistake of counsel is sufficient ground to reinstate the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's reason for failing to attend court—misplacing the notice and omitting to diarize the date—was not sufficient to justify setting aside the dismissal order. The court noted that there was inordinate delay between the dismissal on 2nd November 2018 and the filing of the application on 12th April 2019. Given the age of the matter (filed in 2012) and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the court exercised its discretion against reinstatement. The application was found to lack merit and was dismissed, with no order as to costs since the application was not defended.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to set aside and/or vary the dismissal order issued on 2nd November 2018 is dismissed.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.