[2022] KECA 1210 (KLR)
The court found that the appellants acted promptly by filing the application for reinstatement within three days of the dismissal, well within the 30-day period prescribed by the rules. Although the previous advocates failed to explain their absence, the court held that it would be unjust to deny the appellants a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KECA 1210 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Willy Wanyoike Macharia; Appellant: Daniel Mwangi Mugo; Appellant: Onesmus Ng’ang’a Mugo; Appellant: Macharia Mugo; Appellant: Daniel Muthoga Macharia; Appellant: Simon Mugo Macharia; Appellant: Mwangi Wanyoike; Appellant: Wanyoike Macharia; Respondent: Daniel Ng’ang’a Mugo; Respondent: Beth Njambi Njoroge
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal (Application) 73 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Review and Reinstatement of Appeal Dismissed for Non Attendance
- Outcome
- application allowed; appeal reinstated
- Judges
- HA Omondi, KI Laibuta, PM Gachoka
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Appeal, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Mistake of Advocate, Application for Review
- 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
Willy Wanyoike Macharia
Appellant
Daniel Mwangi Mugo
Appellant
Onesmus Ng’ang’a Mugo
Appellant
Macharia Mugo
Appellant
Daniel Muthoga Macharia
Appellant
Simon Mugo Macharia
Appellant
Mwangi Wanyoike
Appellant
Wanyoike Macharia
Appellant
Daniel Ng’ang’a Mugo
Respondent
Beth Njambi Njoroge
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Review and Reinstatement of Appeal Dismissed for Non Attendance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be reinstated after dismissal for non-attendance due to advocate's mistake.
- 2 Whether the applicants acted promptly and within the prescribed time to seek reinstatement.
- 3 Whether the mistake of counsel should be visited upon the litigants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellants acted promptly by filing the application for reinstatement within three days of the dismissal, well within the 30-day period prescribed by the rules. Although the previous advocates failed to explain their absence, the court held that it would be unjust to deny the appellants a hearing due to their advocate's mistake, especially since the appellants took immediate steps to rectify the situation. The court emphasized that the door of justice should not be closed to a party due to an advocate's error when the party has otherwise complied with procedural requirements and acted in good faith.
Court Disposition
application allowed; appeal reinstated
Orders
- The application dated October 6, 2016 is allowed.
- The appeal is reinstated for hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
Macharia & 7 others v Mugo & another (Civil Appeal (Application) 73 of 2014) [2022] KECA 1210 (KLR) (4 November 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KECA 1210 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Civil Appeal (Application) 73 of 2014
HA Omondi, KI Laibuta & PM Gachoka, JJA
November 4, 2022
Between
Willy Wanyoike Macharia
1st Appellant
Daniel Mwangi Mugo
2nd Appellant
Onesmus Ng’ang’a Mugo
3rd Appellant
Macharia Mugo
4th Appellant
Daniel Muthoga Macharia
5th Appellant
Simon Mugo Macharia
6th Appellant
Mwangi Wanyoike
7th Appellant
Wanyoike Macharia
8th Appellant
and
Daniel Ng’ang’a Mugo
1st Respondent
Beth Njambi Njoroge
2nd Respondent
(Being an application for review of the orders made on 3rd October 2016 in Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2014)
Ruling
1. Before us is a notice of motion dated October 6, 2016 brought under rule 102(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010.
2. The application seeks an order for reinstatement of the appeal dated April 10, 2014, which was dismissed for non-attendance on October 6, 2016.
3. The application was listed for hearing through the Go To online platform and, when called out, the appellant / applicants’ counsel was present, but the respondents were not represented. The court satisfied itself that the respondents’ advocate was duly served.
4. The application is supported by the affidavit of Daniel Mwangi Mugo, the second appellant, who depones: that all the appellants had instructed the firm of RH Wanga & Co Advocates to act for them; that the appeal was listed for hearing on October 3, 2016, and that the hearing notice had been served on the said firm of advocates; that the advocate who was handling the firm had since left the law firm, and that they had no contact with him; that upon making enquiry in the court registry, they learnt that the appeal had been dismissed for non-attendance; that the law firm admitted that the non-attendance was due to an honest mistake; that the appellants are desirous of prosecuting the appeal; that they should not be punished on account of a mistake by the advocates; and that they have since appointed another firm of advocates, who filed a notice of change of advocates on November 2, 2016.
5. We have carefully considered the application, the supporting affidavit and the documents on record. The respondents have not filed a replying affidavit or written submissions in opposition to the application.
6. We note that the appeal was dismissed on October 3, 2016, and that this application was filed on October 6, 2016, which was within 30 days from the date of the dismissal in issue as required under rule 105(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022.
7. This application was filed by the previous advocates on record, RH Wanga & Co, and the least they should have done is to explain why they did not attend court. However, we note that the appellants acted promptly and filed an application for reinstatement three days following the dismissal of the appeal. Whereas we do not condone the advocates’ mistake, we think it would be harsh to lock out the door of justice for the applicants, considering that the application for reinstatement was filed within time.
8. In view of the foregoing, we allow the application dated October 6, 2016 and reinstate the appeal for hearing with no order as to cost.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022. H. A. OMONDI...........................................JUDGE OF APPEALDR. K. I. LAIBUTA............................................JUDGE OF APPEALM. GACHOKA, CIArb, FCIArb...........................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR