[2020] KEELC 225 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 225 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had complied with the court's directions by filing their submissions within the required time frame via electronic mail. The failure to bring the submissions to the court's attention was due to inadvertence on the part of the court registry, not the applicants. As such, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 225 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Henry Shikuku Barasa, Joash Chimunge Waswa, John Nyongesa Ngeywa (Suing as the duly authorized representatives of Matisi Outreach Church); Respondent: Reuben Fwamba Mbita
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 11 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Dismissed Application and Deem Submissions Properly Filed
Outcome
Application allowed; previous dismissal order vacated; application reinstated; submissions deemed properly filed; each party to bear own costs.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Application, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Filing of Submissions, Court Registry Inadvertence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Reinstatement of Application Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Filing of Submissions Court Registry Inadvertence

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Shikuku Barasa, Joash Chimunge Waswa, John Nyongesa Ngeywa (Suing as the duly authorized representatives of Matisi Outreach Church)

Applicant

Reuben Fwamba Mbita

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Dismissed Application and Deem Submissions Properly Filed

  1. 1 Whether the application dated 13th February 2020 should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' submissions were properly filed and served as required by the court order.
  3. 3 Whether the court registry's inadvertence justified setting aside the dismissal order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had complied with the court's directions by filing their submissions within the required time frame via electronic mail. The failure to bring the submissions to the court's attention was due to inadvertence on the part of the court registry, not the applicants. As such, the dismissal of the application dated 13th February 2020 for want of prosecution was not justified. The court therefore vacated its earlier order of dismissal, reinstated the application, and deemed the applicants' submissions properly filed and served. The court directed that the application be disposed of by way of written submissions and ordered each party to bear its own costs for...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; previous dismissal order vacated; application reinstated; submissions deemed properly filed; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • The order of this court made on 21/7/2020 dismissing the application dated 13th February 2020 is hereby vacated.
  • The application dated 13th February 2020 is reinstated.