[2005] KEHC 1124 (KLR)
The court found that the failure of the plaintiff's advocate to attend court was due to an excusable mistake—specifically, the clerk's failure to note the hearing date. The court accepted the explanation provided in the affidavit and the supporting letter from the former advocate. It held that the discretion to set...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1124 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jack and Jill Supermarkets Limited; Defendant: Gitonga Kimani H Njoroge Mburu t/a Mburu Gitonga & Company Advocates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 388 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Orders, Discretion of Court, Non Attendance, Excusable Mistake, Contempt Proceedings
- 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
Jack and Jill Supermarkets Limited
Plaintiff
Gitonga Kimani H Njoroge Mburu t/a Mburu Gitonga & Company Advocates
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff's application for contempt should be set aside due to non-attendance by counsel.
- 2 Whether the explanation for counsel's non-attendance constitutes an excusable mistake or error.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the failure of the plaintiff's advocate to attend court was due to an excusable mistake—specifically, the clerk's failure to note the hearing date. The court accepted the explanation provided in the affidavit and the supporting letter from the former advocate. It held that the discretion to set aside a dismissal should be exercised to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from such excusable mistakes. The court rejected the defendant's technical objection regarding the affidavit and found no merit in the argument that the explanation was insufficient. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal of the plaintiff's application.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The order made on 3rd November 2004 dismissing the plaintiff’s application dated 22nd September 2004 is hereby set aside with no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI(NNNNNNNAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Misc Civ Appli 388 of 2002
JACK AND JILL SUPERMARKETS LIMITED…………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GITONGA KIMANI H NJOROGE MBURU T/A MBURU GITONGA & COMPANY ADVOCATES……………..……...DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
The plaintiff by a chamber summons dated 10th December 2004 seeks the setting aside of the dismissal of the application dated 22nd September 2004. The affidavit in support of the application was sworn by a director of the plaintiff’s company. He stated that the application dated 22nd September 2004 sought orders that the defendants be cited for contempt of court for having disobeyed court orders. That the plaintiffs then, advocate, failed to attend court because of his clerk’s failure to note the case in his diary. He annexed to his affidavit a letter written by his former advocate, which supported his averments.
Plaintiffs counsel relied on tow cases: MAINA V MUGIRIA [1983] KLR 78; and CIVIL APPEAL NO 216 OF 1997 JOSEPH MUNIU – AND – MEDICINO GIOVANNI.
The latter case’s facts are similar to our facts in this case. The counsel’s clerk had also failed to enter the date into the counsel’s diary. The court of appeal stated as follows: “Once the judge has accepted that somebody had forgotten or overlooked to do so, as he did, in our views, it is not material to know who that person was or how or why he or she had forgotten. In our view the explanation given by Miss Jan Mahamed was good enough to show why she failed to attend at the hearing of the suit.” This quote ought to satisfy the argument, raised by the defendant that because the plaintiff’s then advocate did not swear an affidavit, or his clerk, there was no sufficient explanation why he failed to attend court. The defendants counsel also opposed the application on the basis that paragraph 3 should be struck out for contravening order 18 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. I have considered that submission and I find it is not merited, the paragraph merely repeats what the plaintiff’s then advocate stated in the annexed letter.
I have considered the submissions made before me and I am conscious of the discretion bestowed upon me, in an application brought under order IXB rule 8, and I am aware that, that discretion should be exercised to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident inadvertence or excusable mistake or error. What happened here and was the cause of counsel failing to attend court on 3rd November 2004 was an excusable mistake or error, and I, in exercise of my discretion, will set aside the aforesaid dismissal.
The order of the court is: -
(1) That the order made on 3rd November 204, dismissing the plaintiff’s application dated 22nd September 2004 is hereby set aside with no order as to costs.
Dated and delivered this 19th August 2005.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE