[2014] KEHC 2255 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 2255 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had satisfactorily explained the reason for her failure to attend the Notice to Show Cause, namely, her inability to secure funds for advertisement of a substituted process. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the plaintiff, holding that justice would be better served...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 2255 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jedida Ngina Kibunta; Defendant: City Council of Nairobi; Defendant: Abraham Mwangi Njihia; Defendant: The Chief Land Registrar; Defendant: Morris Gitonga Njue; Defendant: Vera Mwasi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 1877 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Suit
Outcome
application allowed; suit reinstated
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Notice to Show Cause, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Reinstatement of Suit Dismissal for Non Attendance Notice to Show Cause Exercise of Judicial Discretion

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jedida Ngina Kibunta

Plaintiff

City Council of Nairobi

Defendant

Abraham Mwangi Njihia

Defendant

The Chief Land Registrar

Defendant

Morris Gitonga Njue

Defendant

Vera Mwasi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Suit

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has provided sufficient cause for the reinstatement of the suit dismissed for non-attendance.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to set aside the dismissal order and allow the suit to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had satisfactorily explained the reason for her failure to attend the Notice to Show Cause, namely, her inability to secure funds for advertisement of a substituted process. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the plaintiff, holding that justice would be better served by reinstating the suit and allowing it to proceed to hearing on its merits. The dismissal order was therefore set aside, and the suit reinstated, subject to the plaintiff taking positive action within 30 days.

Court Disposition

application allowed; suit reinstated

Orders

  • The order of dismissal of the suit issued on 2nd February 2012 is set aside and the suit is reinstated to proceed to full hearing.
  • The plaintiff must take positive action within 30 days from the date of the ruling.