[2023] KEHC 25525 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 25525 (KLR)

The court found that, although the applicant's explanation for non-attendance (unstable internet and failure of an advocate to hold brief) was not fully substantiated, issues of internet connectivity are sometimes difficult to prove and are experienced by the court as well. The application for review was filed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 25525 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Wilfred Barasa Opondo; Respondent: Camilita Akinyi Odebero
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E178 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review and Reinstatement
Outcome
Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application reinstated; interim stay extended; costs to respondent.
Judges
JN Mulwa
Legal Topics
Review of Dismissal Orders, Reinstatement of Application, Non Attendance, Internet Connectivity Issues
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Review of Dismissal Orders Reinstatement of Application Non Attendance Internet Connectivity Issues

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

Parties

Wilfred Barasa Opondo

Applicant

Camilita Akinyi Odebero

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review and Reinstatement

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient cause for non-attendance leading to dismissal of his application.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal order dated 26/07/2023 should be set aside and the application reinstated for hearing.
  3. 3 Whether interim stay orders should be reinstated pending hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the applicant's explanation for non-attendance (unstable internet and failure of an advocate to hold brief) was not fully substantiated, issues of internet connectivity are sometimes difficult to prove and are experienced by the court as well. The application for review was filed promptly after the dismissal. Exercising judicial discretion under the Civil Procedure Act to do justice, the court set aside the dismissal order, reinstated the application for hearing, and extended interim stay orders. The applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application reinstated; interim stay extended; costs to respondent.

Orders

  • The dismissal orders dated 26/07/2023 are set aside.
  • The Notice of Motion dated 30/03/2023 is reinstated for hearing interpartes on 20/03/2024.