[2009] KECA 178 (KLR)

[2009] KECA 178 (KLR)

The court found that the Applicant's counsel's explanation for non attendance—being engaged before another Judge and forgetting about the matter—did not constitute sufficient cause, especially in light of the prolonged delay in prosecuting the application since 1998. The court noted the Applicant's apparent lack of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KECA 178 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Planters Co-operative Union Limited; Respondent: Joseph Kahiga Kihungi
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 2810 of 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
JM Khamoni
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Reinstatement of Applications
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders Dismissal for Non Attendance Reinstatement of Applications

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Planters Co-operative Union Limited

Applicant

Joseph Kahiga Kihungi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte order dismissing the Plaintiff's application for non attendance should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant provided sufficient cause for non attendance on the hearing date.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant's counsel's explanation for non attendance—being engaged before another Judge and forgetting about the matter—did not constitute sufficient cause, especially in light of the prolonged delay in prosecuting the application since 1998. The court noted the Applicant's apparent lack of interest in pursuing the application, as previously observed by Lady Justice Mugo. Consequently, the court declined to set aside the ex parte dismissal order, emphasizing that the Applicant should proceed with the main suit rather than relying on repeated applications as excuses for delay.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 4th July 2006 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.