[2018] KEELC 268 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 268 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was not served with notice prior to the dismissal of the suit for non-attendance. Since the respondents did not challenge the application and there was evidence of proper service of the application on them, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 268 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mara North Holdings Limited; Defendant: Saruni Kalamet Sengeny; Defendant: ZhongEA Asia Africa Hotels Co Ltd; Defendant: The District Lands Registrar, Narok County
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 118 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Injunction
Outcome
application allowed; dismissal order set aside; injunction reinstated
Judges
MN Kullow
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Dismissal, Reinstatement of Injunction, Non Attendance, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Setting Aside Dismissal Reinstatement of Injunction Non Attendance Service of Process

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mara North Holdings Limited

Plaintiff

Saruni Kalamet Sengeny

Defendant

ZhongEA Asia Africa Hotels Co Ltd

Defendant

The District Lands Registrar, Narok County

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the order dismissing the suit for non-attendance should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the injunction previously granted should be reinstated.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was properly served with notice prior to dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was not served with notice prior to the dismissal of the suit for non-attendance. Since the respondents did not challenge the application and there was evidence of proper service of the application on them, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order. The court held that it is in the interest of justice for the matter to be heard on its merits and that the applicant would suffer irreparable loss if the orders sought were not granted. Consequently, the court allowed the application, set aside the dismissal order, and reinstated the injunction previously granted.

Court Disposition

application allowed; dismissal order set aside; injunction reinstated

Orders

  • The order of dismissal dated 31st January, 2018 is set aside.
  • The order of injunction issued on 16th September, 2015 is reinstated.