[2018] KEELC 1701 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 1701 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs provided a reasonable explanation for their non-attendance, specifically the 1st plaintiff's illness and subsequent medical treatment. Although no explanation was provided for counsel's absence, the lack of opposition from the respondents influenced the court to exercise its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 1701 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Margaret Ngina Igogo; Plaintiff: Allan Mbugua Igogo; Defendant: Monica Waithira Ticha; Defendant: The Land Registrar – Kiambu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 94 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Application for Reinstatement of Suit
Outcome
application allowed; suit reinstated
Judges
BM Eboso
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Suit, Non Attendance, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Reinstatement of Suit Non Attendance Judicial Discretion

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Ngina Igogo

Plaintiff

Allan Mbugua Igogo

Plaintiff

Monica Waithira Ticha

Defendant

The Land Registrar – Kiambu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Application for Reinstatement of Suit

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for non-attendance by the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the plaintiffs' absence is sufficient to warrant reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs provided a reasonable explanation for their non-attendance, specifically the 1st plaintiff's illness and subsequent medical treatment. Although no explanation was provided for counsel's absence, the lack of opposition from the respondents influenced the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants. The court therefore allowed the application and reinstated the suit, emphasizing that the absence of opposition and the explanation for non-attendance justified the exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

application allowed; suit reinstated

Orders

  • The suit is reinstated.
  • The application dated 6/6/2017 is allowed.