[2012] KEHC 959 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 959 (KLR)

The court found that although the applicant's counsel was responsible for failing to attend court on the scheduled hearing date, the nature of the dispute—being a land matter involving adverse possession—warranted that the applicant be given an opportunity to defend the claim on its merits. The court held that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 959 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jemeli Kanyei; Respondent: William Rotich Kipsang
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 37 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings and Revive Application
Outcome
Application allowed in terms of prayer 4; applicant to bear costs and thrown-away costs payable before trial.
Judges
AI Tullu
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Revival of Application
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders Revival of Application

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jemeli Kanyei

Applicant

William Rotich Kipsang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings and Revive Application

  1. 1 Whether the ex-parte proceedings and orders issued on 4th, 19th, and 26th October 2006 should be set aside to allow hearing on merits.
  2. 2 Whether the omission of the applicant's counsel to attend court should be visited upon the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the application to revive the plaintiff/respondent's Chamber Summons dated 20th April 2005 should be allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant's counsel was responsible for failing to attend court on the scheduled hearing date, the nature of the dispute—being a land matter involving adverse possession—warranted that the applicant be given an opportunity to defend the claim on its merits. The court held that the omission of counsel should not be visited upon the applicant in this instance. Consequently, the court allowed the application to the extent of reviving the plaintiff/respondent's Chamber Summons for inter-partes hearing, but ordered that the applicant bear the costs of the application and all thrown-away costs, which must be paid before the trial proceeds.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in terms of prayer 4; applicant to bear costs and thrown-away costs payable before trial.

Orders

  • The plaintiff/respondent's Chamber Summons Application dated 20th April 2005 is revived and to be heard inter-partes on merit.
  • The applicant shall bear the cost of the application and all thrown-away costs, payable before the trial.