[2000] KEHC 191 (KLR)
The court found that although there was a history of non-attendance by the plaintiff, the immediate cause for the suit being struck out was the failure of the advocates to attend court. The court was not provided with a reason for the advocates' absence but resolved to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. In...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 191 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lalita Devi Lalchand (Suing on her own and personal representative of the estate of Lalchand Purcharam Galot (Deceased)); Defendant: Mohanlal Pusharam Galot; Defendant: Ganeshilal Pushram Galot; Defendant: Sohanlal Pusharam Galot
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1905 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Application for Reinstatement of Suit
- Outcome
- Application to reinstate the suit allowed, subject to payment of costs.
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Suit, Non Attendance by Advocate, Adjournment History, Costs of Application
- 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
Lalita Devi Lalchand (Suing on her own and personal representative of the estate of Lalchand Purcharam Galot (Deceased))
Plaintiff
Mohanlal Pusharam Galot
Defendant
Ganeshilal Pushram Galot
Defendant
Sohanlal Pusharam Galot
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Application for Reinstatement of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit previously struck out should be reinstated.
- 2 Whether the applicant's failure to attend court was excusable.
- 3 Whether costs should be imposed as a condition for reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there was a history of non-attendance by the plaintiff, the immediate cause for the suit being struck out was the failure of the advocates to attend court. The court was not provided with a reason for the advocates' absence but resolved to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. In balancing the interests of justice for both sides, the court allowed reinstatement of the suit on the condition that the plaintiff pays the costs of the application within 14 days, failing which the reinstatement order would be vacated.
Court Disposition
Application to reinstate the suit allowed, subject to payment of costs.
Orders
- The suit is reinstated.
- The plaintiff shall pay the costs of this application amounting to Shs.3,000/- within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
9 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 1905 OF 1996 LALITA DEVI LALCHAND
(Suing on her own and personal representative of the estate of LALCHAND PURCHARAM GALOT (Deceased)…………………………………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS MOHANLAL PUSHARAM GALOT…………………………..1ST DEFENDANT GANESHILAL PUSHRAM GALOT…………………………...2ND DEFENDANT SOHANLAL PUSHARAM GALOT……………………………3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
The applicant is asking for an Order that the suit struck our on 26. 6.2000 be reinstated.
In her Supporting Affidavit the applicant says that her advocates failed to attend the court. On the other hand the Defendant in the Replying Affidavit in paragraph 2 list 8 instances when the case had to be adjourned because the plaintiff failed to appear thereby showing that she had no interest in the matter.
I agree with Mr. Odero, the Learned Counsel or the Defendant when he says that justice is for both sides. For the reason however that it is the advocates who did not attend court though we are not told the reason for it, I will give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. I will allow the application to reinstate the suit. The Plaintiff will pay the costs of this application amounting to Shs.3,000/- within 14 days from to-day’s date and in default the Order to reinstate the suit will stand vacated.
Dated and delivered this 23rd day of October, 2000.
KASANGA MULWA
JUDGE