[2005] KEHC 1756 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's failure to attend court on the adjourned date was due to excusable mistake and not a deliberate attempt to obstruct or delay justice. The plaintiff had taken steps to prosecute the case, including taking a hearing date and serving a hearing notice on the defendant. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1756 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Peter Kinya; Defendant: Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 47 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application to set aside dismissal order allowed; plaintiff to bear costs of the application.
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Orders, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Discretion
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Kinya
Plaintiff
Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should set aside its order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff's absence on the hearing date was excusable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's failure to attend court on the adjourned date was due to excusable mistake and not a deliberate attempt to obstruct or delay justice. The plaintiff had taken steps to prosecute the case, including taking a hearing date and serving a hearing notice on the defendant. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order to avoid injustice, holding that the circumstances justified such relief, but ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the application.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application to set aside dismissal order allowed; plaintiff to bear costs of the application.
Orders
- The order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution is set aside.
- The suit is reinstated for hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Civil Case 47 of 1997
PETER KINYA…………………………………..…………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KENYA POWER & LIGHTING CO. LTD…………….DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff’s suit was listed for hearing on 23/6/2004 but on that day his advocate, Mr. Lawrence Mwangi was bereaved and he sent another advocate, Mr. Makori to hold his brief and apply for an adjournment. The application was granted and the hearing was stood over to the following day. On 24/6/2004 neither the Plaintiff nor his advocate attended court and since the Defendant’s representative was present in court and did not admit any part of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant’s advocate prayed that the Plaintiff’s suit be dismissed with costs for want of prosecution and the court granted the application.
The Plaintiff has now filed an application by way of a Chamber Summons urging the court to set aside the orders of dismissal of the suit made on 24/6/2004. In his affidavit in support of the application, he deposed that on 23/6/2004 he was in the law courts building but was not in court No.2 when this matter was called out. He met his advocate’s court clerk who informed him that Mr. Mwangi had been bereaved and had sent another advocate to hold his brief for purposes of seeking an adjournment. He then left the court without knowing that the matter had been adjourned to the following day.
Meanwhile, Mr. Mwangi Advocate was informed in the evening of 23rd June, 2004 that the matter had been stood over to the 24th of June, 2004. He tried to reach his client by telephone but he was unable and so on the morning of 24th June he went to the Plaintiff’s home in the outskirts of Nakuru Town and by the time they arrived in court, the suit had been dismissed for want of prosecution in their absence.
The Defendant filed grounds of opposition to the Plaintiff’s application and stated that the application was unmeritorious. It further contended that the Plaintiff had not been keen on prosecuting his case.
It is not in dispute that this court has discretion to set aside its own order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution. As was stated by Harris J. in SHAH VS MBOGO [1967] E. A. 116 at 123:-
“This discretion is intended so to be exercised to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence, or excusable mistake or error, but is not designed to assist the person who has deliberately sought, whether by evasion or otherwise, to obstruct or delay the course of justice”.
I am satisfied that the plaintiff has advanced sufficient reasons to justify the setting aside of the dismissal orders. The offence which he committed of failing to wait in court to know the date which the matter had been adjourned to is excusable.
On the other hand, the record does not show that the plaintiff has in any way deliberately obstructed or delayed the course of justice. He had taken the hearing date way back on 20/1/2004 and served upon the Defendant a hearing notice. I therefore allow the Plaintiff’s application but he will bear the costs thereof.
DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED at Nakuru this 13th day of July, 2005.
DANIEL MUSINGA
JUDGE
13/7/2005