[2021] KEHC 9672 (KLR)
The court held that although the application for reconstruction of the court file was brought through a miscellaneous file rather than the original case file, this procedural irregularity did not cause any harm. The usual practice is to open a skeleton file in the original cause and make the application there, but...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 9672 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mary Akomba Asiebela; Respondent: Elizabeth Mujisa Vigatsi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 151 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reconstruction of Court File
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Reconstruction of Court File, Court Registry Practice
- 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
Mary Akomba Asiebela
Applicant
Elizabeth Mujisa Vigatsi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reconstruction of Court File
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for reconstruction of the court file should be granted.
- 2 Whether the application was properly brought through a miscellaneous file instead of the original case file.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that although the application for reconstruction of the court file was brought through a miscellaneous file rather than the original case file, this procedural irregularity did not cause any harm. The usual practice is to open a skeleton file in the original cause and make the application there, but granting the orders sought in the miscellaneous file would not prejudice any party. Therefore, the application for reconstruction was allowed as prayed.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The Motion dated 27th February 2020 is allowed as prayed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2019
MARY AKOMBA ASIEBELA................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
ELIZABETH MUJISA VIGATSI..................................................... RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application for determination is the Motion, dated 27th February 2020. It is a straightforward application for reconstruction of the court file in Kakamega HCCC 132 of 1998(OS).
2. I do not quite understand why the application for reconstruction of the court in Kakamega HCCC 132 of 1998(OS) had to be brought through a miscellaneous file, instead of being lodged in the file in Kakamega HCCC 132 of 1998(OS).
3. The usual practice, in cases of this nature, is that the registry opens a skeleton file in the cause, in this case in Kakamega HCCC 132 of 1998(OS), and then the application for reconstruction is made in the skeleton or temporary file.
4. Be that as it may. It would cause no harm at all to grant the orders sought in the miscellaneous file. Reconstruction of a trial court file is a straightforward matter that none of the parties should object to.
5. The final order is that the Motion dated 27th February 2020 is allowed as prayed.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGATHIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE