[2019] KEELC 4360 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 4360 (KLR)

The court found that there was no evidence on record that the hearing notice for the scheduled hearing was served on either the plaintiffs or the defendants. None of the parties attended court on the hearing date. The court was satisfied that the omission leading to dismissal was inadvertent and that substantive...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 4360 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Elima Nyukuri; Plaintiff: David Nyongesa Wamalwa; Defendant: Leonard K. Wamocho; Defendant: Kennedy W Sitoko; Defendant: Protus S Munialo; Defendant: Andrew Boaz Juma; Defendant: Maurice Tabalia; Defendant: Patrick Jokinda
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 160 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Suit
Outcome
Application for reinstatement of suit granted; no order as to costs.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Service of Hearing Notice
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Reinstatement of Suit Dismissal for Non Attendance Service of Hearing Notice

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Elima Nyukuri

Plaintiff

David Nyongesa Wamalwa

Plaintiff

Leonard K. Wamocho

Defendant

Kennedy W Sitoko

Defendant

Protus S Munialo

Defendant

Andrew Boaz Juma

Defendant

Maurice Tabalia

Defendant

Patrick Jokinda

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Suit

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for non-attendance.
  2. 2 Whether there was proper service of the hearing notice for the dismissed hearing date.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require the suit to be heard on its merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no evidence on record that the hearing notice for the scheduled hearing was served on either the plaintiffs or the defendants. None of the parties attended court on the hearing date. The court was satisfied that the omission leading to dismissal was inadvertent and that substantive justice would be served by setting aside the dismissal order. The application for reinstatement was therefore granted to allow the suit to be heard on its merits.

Court Disposition

Application for reinstatement of suit granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application dated 21/11/2018 is granted in terms of prayer (a) alone.
  • There shall be no orders as to costs.