[2007] KEHC 15 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 15 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs were innocent parties who had instructed counsel to represent them and had a legitimate expectation that their matter would be handled diligently. The non-attendance of their counsel, while a mistake, should not be visited upon the plaintiffs to their detriment. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] KEHC 15 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Murad Ebrahim Murad; Plaintiff: Hamid Murad; Defendant: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd.; Defendant: Anne Wangui Mwicharo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 525 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Applications
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application to set aside dismissal granted; previous dismissal orders set aside; applications reinstated for hearing before a different judge; costs awarded to defendants.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Reinstatement of Suit, Court Discretion, Non Attendance of Counsel
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Setting Aside Orders Reinstatement of Suit Court Discretion Non Attendance of Counsel

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murad Ebrahim Murad

Plaintiff

Hamid Murad

Plaintiff

Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd.

Defendant

Anne Wangui Mwicharo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Applications

  1. 1 Whether the court should set aside its orders dismissing the plaintiff's application due to non-attendance of counsel.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs, as innocent parties, should be prejudiced by their counsel's failure to attend court.
  3. 3 Whether the applications previously dismissed should be reinstated and heard on their merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs were innocent parties who had instructed counsel to represent them and had a legitimate expectation that their matter would be handled diligently. The non-attendance of their counsel, while a mistake, should not be visited upon the plaintiffs to their detriment. The court emphasized that its discretion to set aside dismissal orders is wide and should be exercised to prevent injustice, especially where the party seeking relief was not personally at fault. The court also noted that the applications raised serious legal issues that deserved to be heard on their merits. Accordingly, the court set aside the orders dismissing the plaintiffs' application and...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application to set aside dismissal granted; previous dismissal orders set aside; applications reinstated for hearing before a different judge; costs awarded to defendants.

Orders

  • The application dated 18th June 2009 is granted; orders dismissing the application dated 25th March 2008 and setting down the application dated 19th October 2007 are set aside.
  • Plaintiffs to pay thrown away costs of Kshs. 15,000 to each defendant within 7 days.