[2017] KEHC 5271 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 5271 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent's advocate provided satisfactory reasons for his non-attendance on 28th February, 2017, as he was engaged in other matters before different judges and attempted to have the matter reopened shortly after the dismissal. The application for reinstatement was filed promptly within three days, which the court considered reasonable. No prejudice to the applicant was alleged or established. The objection to the respondent's advocate's appearance was rejected as it was not properly raised by formal application and there was insufficient evidence of conflict of interest. Consequently, the court allowed the application to set aside the dismissal order and...

Citation
[2017] KEHC 5271 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Meru Bakers Ltd; Respondent: Joseph Gitonga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
3 May 2017
Case Number
Miscellaneous Succession Cause 158 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order and Reinstate Application
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
A Mabeya
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Reinstatement of Application, Non Attendance, Costs in the Cause
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Orders Reinstatement of Application Non Attendance Costs in the Cause

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meru Bakers Ltd

Applicant

Joseph Gitonga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order and Reinstate Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's advocate should be barred from acting due to alleged conflict of interest.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient cause was shown for non-attendance leading to dismissal of the application.
  3. 3 Whether the application for reinstatement was made without undue delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's advocate provided satisfactory reasons for his non-attendance on 28th February, 2017, as he was engaged in other matters before different judges and attempted to have the matter reopened shortly after the dismissal. The application for reinstatement was filed promptly within three days, which the court considered reasonable. No prejudice to the applicant was alleged or established. The objection to the respondent's advocate's appearance was rejected as it was not properly raised by formal application and there was insufficient evidence of conflict of interest. Consequently, the court allowed the application to set aside the dismissal order and...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The order dismissing the application of 12th February, 2017 is set aside.
  • The respondent's application is reinstated for hearing on the merits.