[2020] KEELC 3733 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's advocate's failure to attend court on the scheduled date was due to a bona fide and excusable mistake in diarizing the matter for the wrong day. The court accepted the explanation as plausible and consistent with the policy of allowing matters to be determined on their merits...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 3733 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Henry Ngaluka Musaki; Defendant: Movies For You Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 77 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
- Outcome
- application allowed; suit reinstated
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Excusable Mistake, Right to Be Heard
- 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
Henry Ngaluka Musaki
Plaintiff
Movies For You Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should set aside its order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the suit should be reinstated and determined on its merits.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's advocate's failure to attend court on the scheduled date was due to a bona fide and excusable mistake in diarizing the matter for the wrong day. The court accepted the explanation as plausible and consistent with the policy of allowing matters to be determined on their merits rather than technicalities. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the suit, emphasizing that litigants should not be denied a hearing due to innocent mistakes by their advocates.
Court Disposition
application allowed; suit reinstated
Orders
- The order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution is set aside.
- The suit is reinstated for hearing and determination on its merits.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 77 OF 2017
HENRY NGALUKA MUSAKI.................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MOVIES FOR YOU LIMITED.............................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In the Notice of Motion dated 18th July, 2019, the Plaintiff is seeking for the following orders:
a.That this Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to set aside its orders issued on 16th July, 2019 dismissing this suit.
b.That this Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to order reinstatement and determination of the suit on merit.
c. That the costs of this Application be provided for.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that the failure by the Plaintiff’s advocate to attend court on 16th July, 2019 was innocent; that the advocate’s diary read that the matter was coming up on 17th July, 2019, on which day the advocate appeared in court, and that it was after all the matters had been called out that he was informed that the matter had been dismissed for want of prosecution the previous day.
3. The Plaintiff’s advocate deponed that he has been diligent in prosecuting the matter; that it is only fair that the matter be reinstated and determined on merit and that reinstating and determining the suit on merits is in line with the Court’s policy not to drive a litigant from the seat of Judgment without a hearing.
4. The Application was not opposed.
5. The Record shows that this suit came up for hearing on 16th July, 2019. On the said date, neither the Plaintiff nor his advocate were in court. The court, on its own Motion, dismissed the suit for want of prosecution.
6. The Plaintiff’s advocate is seeking for the reinstatement of the suit on the ground that he had diarized the matter for 17th July, 2019 instead of 16th July, 2019. Counsel has informed the court that he indeed attended court on 17th July, 2019 when he discovered that the matter had been dismissed the previous day.
7. I have considered the depositions of the Plaintiff’s advocate. I have also perused the extract of the Plaintiff’s advocate diary for 16th July, 2019 and 17th July, 2019 and noted that he diarized the matter for 17th July, 2019 instead of 16th July, 2019.
8. The reason that counsel has given for his failure to attend court on 16th July, 2019 is plausible. Indeed, the failure to diarize the date of 16th July, 2019 on the part of counsel is an excusable error made out of a bona fide mistake.
9. For those reasons, I allow the Application dated 18th July, 2019 with no order as to costs.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2020.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE