[2023] KEHC 19498 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 19498 (KLR)

The court found that the application to set aside the dismissal order was filed within nine days of the order, which does not constitute inordinate delay. The applicants provided credible evidence that their advocate was indisposed on the hearing date, as shown by the attached medical treatment summary. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 19498 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jacob Mutuku Musau; Applicant: Sylvester Mbuli Mbuvi; Applicant: Amos Mutuku Musyoka; Applicant: Patrick Karanja Njau; Respondent: Mombasa County Criminal Investigating Officer (CCIO); Respondent: The Director Of Public Prosecution; Interested Party: G4S Kenya Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 19 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order and Reinstate Application
Outcome
Application to set aside dismissal order allowed; original application reinstated for hearing.
Judges
A. Ong’injo
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Reinstatement of Application, Inordinate Delay, Right to Be Heard
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Setting Aside Orders Reinstatement of Application Inordinate Delay Right to Be Heard

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Mutuku Musau

Applicant

Sylvester Mbuli Mbuvi

Applicant

Amos Mutuku Musyoka

Applicant

Patrick Karanja Njau

Applicant

Mombasa County Criminal Investigating Officer (CCIO)

Respondent

The Director Of Public Prosecution

Respondent

G4S Kenya Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the application to set aside the dismissal order was made without inordinate delay.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient cause was shown for non-attendance by the applicants' advocate.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to reinstatement of their dismissed application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application to set aside the dismissal order was filed within nine days of the order, which does not constitute inordinate delay. The applicants provided credible evidence that their advocate was indisposed on the hearing date, as shown by the attached medical treatment summary. The court held that the applicants took reasonable steps to seek reinstatement upon learning of the dismissal. In the interest of justice and the right to be heard, the court allowed the application to set aside the dismissal order, subject to the condition that the applicants would have only one opportunity to prosecute their application expeditiously.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside dismissal order allowed; original application reinstated for hearing.

Orders

  • The orders made on March 22, 2023 dismissing the applicants' application are set aside.
  • The applicants' application is reinstated and will be heard on October 5, 2023.