[2017] KEELC 2293 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 2293 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's advocate had provided a satisfactory explanation for his absence when the suit was dismissed, namely that he was attending to another matter in the High Court at Chuka. The court held that in the interests of justice, the dismissal order issued on 15th March, 2017 should be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 2293 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chairman of the Arbitration Board, Tharaka Adjudication Area, Gatunga Adjudication Section; Respondent: Land Adjudication Officer, Tharaka Adjudication Area, Gatunga Adjudication Section; Interested Party: Tharaka County Council; Applicant: Mbugi Kirakura
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 04 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
Application allowed; suit reinstated; substitution of party granted; costs to interested party.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Land Adjudication, Reinstatement of Suit, Certiorari, Prohibition
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Judicial Review Land Adjudication Reinstatement of Suit Certiorari Prohibition

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Chairman of the Arbitration Board, Tharaka Adjudication Area, Gatunga Adjudication Section

Respondent

Land Adjudication Officer, Tharaka Adjudication Area, Gatunga Adjudication Section

Respondent

Tharaka County Council

Interested Party

Mbugi Kirakura

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal order issued on 15th March, 2017 should be set aside and the suit reinstated.
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte applicant should be allowed to substitute the County Council of Tharaka with the County Government of Tharaka Nithi.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's advocate had provided a satisfactory explanation for his absence when the suit was dismissed, namely that he was attending to another matter in the High Court at Chuka. The court held that in the interests of justice, the dismissal order issued on 15th March, 2017 should be vacated and the suit reinstated. The court also allowed the oral application to substitute the County Council of Tharaka with the County Government of Tharaka Nithi, recognizing the change in legal status of the interested party. Costs of the application were awarded to the interested party, to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; suit reinstated; substitution of party granted; costs to interested party.

Orders

  • The dismissal order issued on 15th March, 2017 is vacated and the suit is reinstated.
  • The ex parte applicant is allowed to substitute the County Council of Tharaka with the County Government of Tharaka Nithi.