[2019] KEELC 2467 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2467 (KLR)

The court found that the explanation provided by the plaintiff's advocate for failing to attend court was reasonable and satisfactory. The absence was not deliberate, and the application for reinstatement was filed promptly the day after dismissal. The court exercised its discretion judiciously, holding that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2467 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Kathuri Mugo; Defendant: James Gicobi Karanja
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 125 & 126 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Non Attendance
Outcome
Application allowed; suit reinstated; costs awarded to defendant.
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Exercise of Discretion, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Reinstatement of Suit Dismissal for Non Attendance Exercise of Discretion Costs Award

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Kathuri Mugo

Plaintiff

James Gicobi Karanja

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Non Attendance

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for non-attendance.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for non-attendance by the plaintiff and his advocate is reasonable and satisfactory.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in attending court was deliberate or excusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the explanation provided by the plaintiff's advocate for failing to attend court was reasonable and satisfactory. The absence was not deliberate, and the application for reinstatement was filed promptly the day after dismissal. The court exercised its discretion judiciously, holding that the inconvenience caused to the defendant could be compensated by an award of costs. Consequently, the order dismissing the suit was set aside, and the suit was reinstated, with the plaintiff ordered to pay thrown away costs to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; suit reinstated; costs awarded to defendant.

Orders

  • The order dismissing the suit for non-attendance and want of prosecution is set aside.
  • The suit is reinstated.