[2025] KEELC 623 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had satisfactorily explained the failure to attend court, attributing it to technological failures rather than deliberate default. Since the respondent did not contest the facts, and in line with the principle that justice should be administered without undue regard to procedural...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 623 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joel Korir & others; Defendant: Joseph Kipsang Rotich & 5 others
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 73 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- A Ombwayo
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Failure to Attend Court, Technological Failures, Interest of Justice
- 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 Korir & others
Plaintiff
Joseph Kipsang Rotich & 5 others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should set aside its order dismissing the applicant's application for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for failure to attend court due to technological failures.
- 3 Whether the suit should be reinstated and set down for hearing on merit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had satisfactorily explained the failure to attend court, attributing it to technological failures rather than deliberate default. Since the respondent did not contest the facts, and in line with the principle that justice should be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the order of dismissal. The application to reinstate the suit was allowed, with costs in the cause, to ensure the matter is heard and determined on its merits.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The order dismissing the applicant's application for want of prosecution is set aside.
- The applicant's application is reinstated and to be set down for hearing and determination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Korir & others v Rotich & 5 others (Environment & Land Case 73 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 623 (KLR) (18 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 623 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Environment & Land Case 73 of 2019
A Ombwayo, J
February 18, 2025
Between
Joel Korir & others
Plaintiff
and
Joseph Kipsang Rotich & 5 others & 5 others & 5 others
Defendant
Ruling
1. Joel Korir and others have come to this court vide the application dated 14th November 2024 seeking orders that this honorable court be pleased to set aside its orders issued on the 13th of November 2024, dismissing the plaintiff/Applicant’s Application for want of prosecution and on such terms as may be just. The applicant seeks orders that this honorable court be pleased to reinstate the Applicant’s Application and the same set down for hearing and determination. Cost of the application be in the cause.
2. The application is based on grounds that the applicant herein filed an Application dated 28th October 2024 seeking to reinstate the plaintiff’s suit which was dismissed on the 7th October 2024. The said Application was filed under certificate of urgency and the same fixed for hearing on the 13th of November 2024. That on the said date 13th November 2024, the Applicant’s advocate did log in to the online court however before the matter was called out, the system logged him out and was unable to as address the court.
3. Upon successfully returning to the online platform, the advocate requested the court to recall the file but the court noted that the same had been moved by the Respondent for dismissal. The said failure to be on the platform at the time the file was called tis associated with technological failures and not deliberate failure to attend the court. The Applicants stand to suffer irreparable harm and loss unless the Application is heard and determined on merit and not summarily dismissed on technicalities and failure of technology. The respondents shall not suffer any irreparable harm or loss should the suit be reinstated. It is in the interest of justice that the suit herein be determined on merit as opposed to technicalities.
4. The supporting affidavit of Hezron Kimutai Bitok reiterates the grounds of the application. The respondent did not reply hence the facts relied upon by the applicant in the affidavit of Hezron Bitok are not controverted. I do find that the applicant has satisfactorily and sufficiently explained his failure to attend court. I do allow the application. Costs in the cause.
RULING DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU THIS 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025. A O OMBWAYOJUDGE