[2022] KEELC 1525 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant was not served with a hearing notice for the application scheduled for 27/7/2021, as required by the court's earlier directions. The plaintiffs' advocate failed to inform the court of this non-service. As a result, the dismissal order made in the absence of the defendant was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 1525 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joel Raduma Ramogo; Plaintiff: Mary Atieno Ondoro; Defendant: Integrity Holdings Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Thika
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 173 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Dismissed Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application reinstated.
- Judges
- BM Eboso
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Application, Service of Hearing Notice, Setting Aside Orders, Procedural Fairness
- 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
Joel Raduma Ramogo
Plaintiff
Mary Atieno Ondoro
Plaintiff
Integrity Holdings Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Dismissed Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant was properly served with a hearing notice for the application dismissed on 27/7/2021.
- 2 Whether failure to serve the defendant with a hearing notice justified setting aside the dismissal order and reinstating the application.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs' grounds of opposition were sufficient to defeat the application for reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant was not served with a hearing notice for the application scheduled for 27/7/2021, as required by the court's earlier directions. The plaintiffs' advocate failed to inform the court of this non-service. As a result, the dismissal order made in the absence of the defendant was procedurally unfair. The court emphasized that parties must be notified of all scheduled court activities, and failure to do so undermines the right to be heard. Consequently, the dismissal order was set aside ex debito justitiae, and the defendant's application was reinstated. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application reinstated.
Orders
- The dismissal order made on 27/7/2021 is set aside ex debito justitiae.
- The defendant's application dated 11/5/2021 is reinstated for hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT THIKA
ELC CASE NO. 173 OF 2019
JOEL RADUMA RAMOGO...............................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
MARY ATIENO ONDORO...............................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
INTEGRITY HOLDINGS LIMITED ................................................ DEFENDANT
RULING
1. On or about 21/5/2021, the defendant brought a notice of motion dated 11/5/2021, seeking, among other reliefs, an order reviewing and/or setting aside the orders issued by this court on 15/4/2021. The import of the order of 15/4/2021 is that this court restrained the defendant against continuing any works of building and/or construction on Land Parcel Number Dagoretti/Kinoo/5214, pending the hearing and determination of this suit. When the said application dated 11/5/2021 came up for hearing before Gacheru J, there was no attendance on part of the plaintiff. Consequently, the application was dismissed and parties were directed to comply with pre-trial requirements. Subsequently, the defendant brought a notice of motion dated 21/10/2021, seeking an order reinstating the dismissed application dated 11/5/2021. The said application dated 21/10/2021 is the subject of this ruling.
2. The application was supported by the affidavit of Charles Kuria, a directorof the defendant, sworn on 21/10/2021. He deposed that the dismissed application was initially scheduled for hearing on 16/6/2021 but on that day their advocate was unable to log into the virtual court. He added that counsel for the plaintiff did not thereafter notify them about the subsequent hearing date. He further deposed that on the morning of 27/7/2021, counsel for the plaintiff emailed to their advocate a replying affidavit sworn on 10/7/2021 but did not notify them about the hearing which was scheduled for the same day. He added that later the same day, the plaintiff’s advocate served their advocates with a pre-trial notice, indicating that the matter was scheduled for pre-trial on 20/9/2021. It was his case that their advocate learnt about the dismissal order when he attended the pre-trial on 20/9/2021.
3. The plaintiffs opposed the application through grounds of opposition dated 27/10/2021, in which they contended that the application: (i) was bad in law and an abuse of the process of the court; (ii) was frivolous and vexatious; (iii) was intended to delay justice and waste time; (iv) was disguised when in fact it was an application for review of a decision against a review application; (v) lacked merit and was made in bad faith.
4. The application was canvassed through written submission dated 31/5/2022. The plaintiffs filed written submissions dated 5/1/2022 opposing the application.
5. The court has considered the application, the grounds of opposition and the parties’ respective written submissions. The court has also considered the relevant legal framework and jurisprudence. The key question to be answered in the application is whether there is merit in the plea for an order reinstating the application dated 11/5/2021.
6. The plaintiffs elected not to file a replying affidavit. They instead opted to file grounds of opposition. Consequently, the depositions in the supporting affidavit sworn by Charles Kuria are uncontroverted. Secondly, I have looked at the coram and proceedings of 16/6/2021. There was attendance by Mr Kirimi for the plaintiffs but there was no attendance on part of the defendant. On that day, Mr Kirimi requested for 14 days within which to file a replying affidavit to the application. He was granted the 14 days. The court fixed the application for interpartes hearing on 27/7/2021 and directed Mr Kirimi to serve the applicant/defendant with a hearing notice. There is no evidence that the applicant was subsequently served with a hearing notice as directed by the court.
7. It does therefore emerge that the day the dismissal order was made, the applicant had not been served with a hearing notice. In my view, counsel for the plaintiff had a duty to inform the court that he did not serve a hearing notice as directed by the court. He failed to disclose that information to the court.
8. Our courts have been consistently categorical that every party to a suit is entitled to be notified about scheduled court activity going on in the suit and any exparte orders procured in contravention of this requirement are liable to be set aside. [See the Court of Appeal decision inJames Kanyiita Nderitu & another v Marios Philota Ghikas & another [2016] eKLR].
9. It is therefore my finding that because the applicant was not aware of the hearing scheduled for 27/7/2021, the dismissal order made on the said day should be set aside ex debito justitiae. It is so ordered. Costs shall be in the cause.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT THIKA ON THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
B M EBOSO
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF: -
MR BARIKI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
MR KINGORI FOR THE DEFENDANT
COURT ASSISTANT: LUCY MUTHONI