[2024] KECPT 953 (KLR)

[2024] KECPT 953 (KLR)

The tribunal found that the applicant's failure to attend the mention of the application dated 11.4.2022 was due to an error by its advocate in diarizing the date, not due to the applicant's own fault. The tribunal held that it would be unjust to deny the applicant a hearing on its application to set aside the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KECPT 953 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kijabe Line Sacco Limited; Respondent: Jacob Boro Kariuki
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 316 (E108) of 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Earlier Application and Stay Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
J. Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Reinstatement of Application, Right to Be Heard
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Judgment Reinstatement of Application Right to Be Heard

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kijabe Line Sacco Limited

Applicant

Jacob Boro Kariuki

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Earlier Application and Stay Interlocutory Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement of the application dated 11.4.2022 for setting aside interlocutory judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the interlocutory judgment and resultant decree should be stayed pending hearing of the reinstated application.
  3. 3 Whether the error of the applicant's advocate in diarizing the mention date justifies reinstatement of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the applicant's failure to attend the mention of the application dated 11.4.2022 was due to an error by its advocate in diarizing the date, not due to the applicant's own fault. The tribunal held that it would be unjust to deny the applicant a hearing on its application to set aside the interlocutory judgment, as the right to be heard is fundamental. The tribunal exercised its discretion to reinstate the application, relying on established case law that errors of counsel should not be visited on the client where justice requires. The tribunal also stayed the interlocutory judgment and consequential orders pending the hearing and determination of the reinstated...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The Judgment Debtor’s Notice of Motion Application dated 11.4.2022 is reinstated for hearing.
  • The interlocutory judgment dated 10.9.2021 and its consequential orders are stayed pending hearing and determination of the application dated 11.4.2022.