[2021] KEHC 7988 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 7988 (KLR)

The court found that there was no evidence of transmission to the parties of the directions issued on 21st December 2020, which were to be served electronically by email. Since the dismissal of the suit was predicated on the assumption that the ex parte Applicants had been served with these directions, and there was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 7988 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: Principal Secretary Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Services; Respondent: Nairobi County Director of Social Services; Respondent: Alexander Hoops Shihemi; Applicant: Peter Njoroge Kanika & Peter Gitau Muiruri (Trustees O/B of Sowesava Self Help Group)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Application E079 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; suit reinstated.
Judges
P Nyamweya
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Review of Judgment, Service of Court Directions
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Orders Review of Judgment Service of Court Directions

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Principal Secretary Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Services

Respondent

Nairobi County Director of Social Services

Respondent

Alexander Hoops Shihemi

Respondent

Peter Njoroge Kanika & Peter Gitau Muiruri (Trustees O/B of Sowesava Self Help Group)

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit

  1. 1 Whether the court's dismissal order should be set aside for want of proper service of directions.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be reinstated for hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no evidence of transmission to the parties of the directions issued on 21st December 2020, which were to be served electronically by email. Since the dismissal of the suit was predicated on the assumption that the ex parte Applicants had been served with these directions, and there was no such service, the court held that sufficient reason existed to set aside the dismissal order. The interests of justice required that the suit be reinstated and the parties be given an opportunity to be heard. The court therefore allowed the application to set aside the dismissal and reinstated the suit for hearing.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; suit reinstated.

Orders

  • The ex parte Applicants’ Notice of Motion application dated 1st February 2021 is certified urgent and admitted to hearing ex parte.
  • The ruling and orders issued on 28th January 2021 are set aside, and the suit is reinstated for hearing.