[2009] KEHC 2464 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 2464 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs, as innocent parties, should not be prejudiced by their counsel's failure to attend court. The judge emphasized that while counsel's conduct was not diligent, the right of the parties to be heard should not be defeated by counsel's mistake. Exercising its discretion under Order...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 2464 (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; applications reinstated; costs awarded to defendants.
Judges
CJ Kendagor
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Reinstatement of Applications, Court Discretion, Non Attendance of Counsel
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Setting Aside Orders Reinstatement of Applications 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.

Downloadable case file 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 dated 19th October 2007 and 25th March 2008 should be reinstated and heard together.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs, as innocent parties, should not be prejudiced by their counsel's failure to attend court. The judge emphasized that while counsel's conduct was not diligent, the right of the parties to be heard should not be defeated by counsel's mistake. Exercising its discretion under Order IXB Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court set aside the orders dismissing the plaintiffs' application and reinstated the applications for hearing. The court also imposed thrown away costs on the plaintiffs to be paid to the defendants, and directed that the applications be heard before a different judge. The status quo regarding the suit property was to be maintained...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application to set aside dismissal granted; applications reinstated; costs awarded to defendants.

Orders

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