[2006] KEHC 1904 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's counsel's failure to attend court was not deliberate, as he was engaged before another judge and appeared before the relevant court soon after the dismissal order was made. The application for review and reinstatement was filed promptly, and the applicant should not be penalized...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1904 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mark Agola Abonyo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 960 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Reinstatement
- Outcome
- application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application reinstated; costs to applicant
- Legal Topics
- Review of Dismissal Orders, Reinstatement of Application, Fundamental Rights Violation
- 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
Mark Agola Abonyo
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Reinstatement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dismissal of the applicant's application due to counsel's absence should be reviewed and set aside.
- 2 Whether the applicant should suffer the consequences of counsel's mistake in failing to attend court.
- 3 Whether the application for reinstatement was made without undue delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's counsel's failure to attend court was not deliberate, as he was engaged before another judge and appeared before the relevant court soon after the dismissal order was made. The application for review and reinstatement was filed promptly, and the applicant should not be penalized for counsel's mistake. The court emphasized the importance of giving parties their day in court, especially where fundamental rights are alleged to have been violated. Consequently, the dismissal order was set aside and the original application reinstated for hearing on its merits, with costs to the applicant.
Court Disposition
application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application reinstated; costs to applicant
Orders
- The application is allowed.
- The orders made on 17th January, 2006 are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Misc Crim Appli 960 of 2003
MARK AGOLA ABONYO ……………............................……………………APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………….………………….............................………………..RESPONDENT
RULING
By a Chamber Summons dated 17th January, 2006 the applicant seeks orders that the dismissal of the application dated 21st September, 2004 on 17th January, 2006 by J. Makhandia be reviewed and heard on merits and the costs of the application be provided for. The application dated 21st September, 2004 came up for hearing before J. Makhandia on the 17th January, 2006 and the applicant’s counsel was called out twice, but found to be absent. The court went a head to dismiss the application.
Mr. Orengo who was seized of the matter appeared before J. Makhandia after the dismissal order had been recorded the court could not reopen it. That is what prompted this application. It is the counsels’ submissions that he was before J. Nyamu for another mention and went to J. Makhandia’s chambers soon after that mention. He says that the delay in appearing before that court was not deliberate and therefore his mistakes should not be visited on the client who seeks orders in the nature of declarations that his fundamental rights have been violated.
I have perused the record and I do note that Mr. Orengo appeared before J. Makhandia court about 9. 16 a.m. soon after the dismissal order. Mr. Orengo has annexed to his affidavit a copy of the cause list for that day which shows the case in which he was involved. The Counsel then filed this application on 18th January, 2006 which was done without any delay. I find that the failure by Mr. Orengo to attend before J. Makhandia was not deliberate and the applicant should not be allowed to suffer because of mistakes committed by counsel. He has taken quicksteps to have the matter reinstated.
The applicant should be given his day in court and I hereby allow the application, set aside the orders made on 17th January, 2006 and order the application dated 21st September, 2004 reinstated, to be heard and determined on merit. The applicants will however bear the costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 16th day of June, 2006
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
Present
Ms Aulo for applicant
Ojijo CC