[2021] KEELC 4052 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 4052 (KLR)

The court found that while the plaintiff's counsel's failure to respond to the defendants' application was due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff had been served with the necessary court process. Nonetheless, the court exercised its discretion under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 4052 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Kisilu Nzau; Defendant: David Maithya Munyasya; Defendant: Francis Musyoka Munyasya
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Makueni
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 66 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Proceedings and for Leave to File Replying Affidavit
Outcome
application partially allowed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Leave to File Affidavit, Court Discretion, Non Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Setting Aside Orders Leave to File Affidavit Court Discretion Non Compliance With Court Orders

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

Joseph Kisilu Nzau

Plaintiff

David Maithya Munyasya

Defendant

Francis Musyoka Munyasya

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Proceedings and for Leave to File Replying Affidavit

  1. 1 Whether the court should set aside its proceedings and orders of 7/8/2020 to allow the plaintiff to file a replying affidavit and submissions.
  2. 2 Whether the failure by the plaintiff's counsel to respond due to COVID-19 disruptions constitutes sufficient cause for granting the orders sought.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require the plaintiff to be heard despite procedural default.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the plaintiff's counsel's failure to respond to the defendants' application was due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff had been served with the necessary court process. Nonetheless, the court exercised its discretion under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard, emphasizing the importance of substantive justice over procedural technicalities. However, the court expressed disapproval of the plaintiff's dereliction and ordered compliance with previous court directions. The application was partially allowed, specifically granting leave for the draft replying affidavit to be deemed duly...

Court Disposition

application partially allowed

Orders

  • Prayer 4 of the application is allowed: the draft replying affidavit annexed to the application is deemed duly filed.
  • Parties are directed to comply with the Order dated 28th July, 2020.