[2023] KEHC 24001 (KLR)
The court found that the dismissal of the appeal was occasioned by an excusable mistake on the part of the applicant's advocate, who failed to diarize the hearing date after the court was not sitting on several occasions due to the judge's engagement in election petitions and subsequent leave. The court held that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 24001 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Erastus John Macharia Muchiri; Respondent: Jane Wanjiru Muchina
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 296 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review and Reinstatement of Dismissed Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed; dismissal order set aside; appeal reinstated
- Judges
- JN Mulwa
- Legal Topics
- Review of Dismissal Orders, Reinstatement of Appeal, Excusable Mistake, Court Absence, Application for Review
- 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
Erastus John Macharia Muchiri
Appellant
Jane Wanjiru Muchina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review and Reinstatement of Dismissed Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution should be reviewed and set aside due to advocate's inadvertence.
- 2 Whether the application for reinstatement of the appeal meets the threshold for excusable mistake under the Civil Procedure Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the dismissal of the appeal was occasioned by an excusable mistake on the part of the applicant's advocate, who failed to diarize the hearing date after the court was not sitting on several occasions due to the judge's engagement in election petitions and subsequent leave. The court held that the absence of the judge and the advocate's inadvertence constituted sufficient cause to review and set aside the dismissal order. In the interest of justice and fairness, and pursuant to the overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Act, the application for review was allowed and the appeal was reinstated for hearing.
Court Disposition
application allowed; dismissal order set aside; appeal reinstated
Orders
- The Notice of Motion application dated 30/06/2023 is allowed.
- The application dated 16/12/2021 is reinstated for hearing on 15/11/2023.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Muchiri v Muchina (Civil Appeal 296 of 2015) [2023] KEHC 24001 (KLR) (Civ) (23 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 24001 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Civil Appeal 296 of 2015
JN Mulwa, J
October 23, 2023
Between
Erastus John Macharia Muchiri
Appellant
and
Jane Wanjiru Muchina
Respondent
Ruling
RULING ON APPLICATION DATED 30/06/2023 1. The Applicant/Appellant seeks an order to review and set aside the dismissal order of the appeal dated 30/05/2022 for want of prosecution of the application dated 16/12/2021 it is based on provisions of Order 12 Rule 1 and Order 40 and 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Reasons for the application as seen from the supporting affidavit sworn on the 30/06/2022 are that on the scheduled date of hearing, the court was not sitting, but another date was taken for the 30/05/2022, but inadvertedly the Advocate did not diarize, and therefore failed to attend court to prosecute the application.
3. I have considered that the dismissal was due to inadvertence by the applicants advocates; after the said application had been taken out on several occasions in February and March, 2023 when this court was not sitting - engaged in Election Petition at Kajiado Law Courts, and thereafter proceeded on annual leave upto end of march, 2023.
4. On 20/07/2023 when the application was eventually listed before me, the applicant’s advocate had no full instructions and therefore parties were directed to file submissions and a ruling date taken.
5. Upon consideration of the reasons and the intervening Court/Judge’s absence from court for the two months for reasons stated therein, I am satisfied that indeed there was excusable mistake by the applicants advocates in failing to diarize the hearing date.
6. For ends of justice and fairness to be done, and to be seen to be done, in terms of provisions of Section 1A, 1B and 3a of the Civil Procedure Act, I am minded to allow the application.
7. Consequently, the Notice of Motion application dated 30/06/2023 is allowed, with the results that the application dated 16/12/2021 is re-instated for hearing on the 15/11/2023. No orders on costs.Orders accordingly.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. JANET MULWAJUDGE