[2021] KEHC 3815 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 3815 (KLR)

The court found that although there was a delay of six months and six days in filing the application for reinstatement, the delay was not unreasonable or inexcusable given the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused confusion and impediments to court attendance and operations. The applicant demonstrated...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 3815 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: The Monarch Insurance Company Limited; Respondent: Bethuel Mbugua Mbaki
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 19 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Application allowed; suit reinstated.
Judges
MC Kesse
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Discretion, Covid 19 Impact on Proceedings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Reinstatement of Suit Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Judicial Discretion Covid 19 Impact on Proceedings

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Monarch Insurance Company Limited

Applicant

Bethuel Mbugua Mbaki

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether sufficient reason exists to reinstate the suit dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the application for reinstatement was unreasonable or inexcusable.
  3. 3 Whether reinstatement would prejudice the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there was a delay of six months and six days in filing the application for reinstatement, the delay was not unreasonable or inexcusable given the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused confusion and impediments to court attendance and operations. The applicant demonstrated good faith in prosecuting the suit, and there was no evidence of prejudice to the respondent, who did not oppose the application. The court exercised its discretion in favor of reinstatement to serve substantive justice and allow the matter to be heard on its merits.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; suit reinstated.

Orders

  • The order made on 16th July 2020 dismissing the suit is set aside.
  • The suit filed on 27th November 2017 is reinstated.