[2011] KEHC 1474 (KLR)
The court found that the failure of the garnishee's advocate to attend court was due to a genuine mistake—specifically, the advocate's failure to note the hearing date in his diary. The court held that such mistakes occasionally occur and that it would be unjust to punish the client for the advocate's error. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1474 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Peter Njoroge Ngahu t/a Ngahu Associates; Defendant: Tetu Housing Co-op Society; Garnishee: Cooperative Bank of Kenya Ltd, Nyeri Branch
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 87 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application reinstated; costs awarded to decree holder.
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Orders, Reinstatement of Application, Discretion of Court, Mistake of Advocate
- 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 Njoroge Ngahu t/a Ngahu Associates
Plaintiff
Tetu Housing Co-op Society
Defendant
Cooperative Bank of Kenya Ltd, Nyeri Branch
Garnishee
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order dismissing the garnishee's application for want of attendance should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the application for stay of execution should be reinstated.
- 3 Whether the mistake of the advocate in failing to attend court constitutes sufficient cause for reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the failure of the garnishee's advocate to attend court was due to a genuine mistake—specifically, the advocate's failure to note the hearing date in his diary. The court held that such mistakes occasionally occur and that it would be unjust to punish the client for the advocate's error. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the application for stay of execution, emphasizing that the interests of justice are best served by allowing the matter to be heard on its merits. However, the court awarded costs of the application to the decree holder, recognizing the inconvenience caused by the garnishee's error.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application reinstated; costs awarded to decree holder.
Orders
- The order made on 21/10/2009 dismissing the application dated 14/10/2009 is set aside.
- The application dated 14/10/2009 is reinstated for hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
CIVIL CASE NO. 87 OF 2003
PETER NJOROGE NGAHUt/a Ngahu Associates………..……..…………….……...PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
TETU HOUSING CO-OP SOCIETY ……….....................................................................……. DEFENDANT
RULING
Pursuant to section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order IXB rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Cooperative Bank of Kenya Ltd, Nyeri Branch, the garnishee herein, took out the summons dated 23rd October 2009 in which it sought for the following orders:
1. That this application be heard ex-parte in the first instance owing to it’s urgency.
2. That the order made on 21/10/2009 dismissing the application dated 14/10/2009 be set aside or varied and the application be reinstated for hearing.
3. That the cost of this application be in the cause.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Patrick M. Wainaina sworn on 23rd October 2009 and a further affidavit of Koin Lompo. Peter Njoroge Ngahu, the decree holder herein filed a replying affidavit he swore on 12th January 2010 to oppose the Summons.
In his affidavit, Patrick M. Wainaina, averred that Mr. Koin Lompo, an advocate who held his brief on 19th October 2009, forgot to indicate in his diary that the application dated 14th October 2009 had been listed for hearing on 21st October 2009 hence the application was dismissed for want of attendance. The learned further averred that he was informed by Mr. Lompo in the morning of the same date that the application had been fixed for hearing on 21st October 2009. He said he travelled to court only to find that his application has been dismissed. He beseeched this court to find that his failure to attend court was not deliberate. He urged this court to set aside the dismissal order and to reinstate the application for stay of execution Mr. Lompo corroborated what Mr. Wainaina had deponed in his further affidavit. Both Messrs Wainaina and Lompo urged this court not to punish the garnishee for the mistake of their advocates. Peter Njoroge Ngahu, the decree holder, implored upon this court to dismiss the application because no plausible reasons or explanation has been given to justify the reinstatement of the dismissed application. The decree holder complained that the garnishee is hell bent to frustrate his effort to recover what is due to him from the funds held by the garnishee on behalf of Tetu Housing Cooperative Society, the Judgment debtor herein.
I have considered the rival submissions. It is not denied that the garnishee’s application dated 14th October 2009 was dismissed on 21st October 2009 for want of attendance on the part of the garnishee’s advocate. The garnishee’s learned advocate has stated that he was not aware that the application was fixed for hearing on 21st October 2009. He said he only came to learn of the hearing date in the morning of the same day. The record shows that Mr. Lompo, learned advocate appeared before me on 19th October 2009 in which he sought to have the motion dated 14th October 2009 to be certified urgent and heard immediately. I certified the motion urgent and had it fixed for interpartes hearing before the Hon. Mr. Justice Makhandia on 21st October 2009. On that date the applicant’s counsel did not attend court thus prompting the Honourable judge to dismiss the motion. The decree holder has complained that the dismissed application had not been served upon him hence there is no need to reinstate the same. What I gather from the replying affidavit of the decree holder is that the garnishee’s application is calculated to frustrate him from executing the decree. He does not attack the veracity of the averments made on oath by learned advocates. The applicants are beseeching this court to exercise its discretionary power. After a careful consideration of the application I am convinced the garnishee’s learned advocate made a genuine mistake which occasionally occurs in our daily lives. He simply did not note in his diary the date when the application was scheduled for hearing. The client should not be punished for a genuine mistake of learned advocate. I will exercise my discretion in favour of the garnishee save that the decree holder should be paid costs of the application. Consequently the summons dated 23rd October 2009 is allowed as prayed save that costs is awarded to the decree holder.
Dated and delivered this 20th day of June 2011
J.K. SERGON
JUDGE
In open court in the absence of parties with notice.