[2019] KEHC 5164 (KLR)
The court found that while expeditious and efficient conduct of litigation is important, these principles should not be used to deny a party the opportunity to be heard, especially where the absence of the advocate was explained and no prejudice to the respondents was demonstrated. The court held that the lower...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 5164 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Sameer Africa Limited (Formerly Firestone East Africa (1969) Limited); Respondent: Molo Muoki; Respondent: Keshra & Sons Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 499 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal of Suit, Reinstatement of Suit, Right to Be Heard
- 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
Sameer Africa Limited (Formerly Firestone East Africa (1969) Limited)
Appellant
Molo Muoki
Respondent
Keshra & Sons Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the suit for non-attendance of the appellant's advocate.
- 2 Whether the lower court properly considered the reasons advanced for the advocate's absence.
- 3 Whether the principles of justice and the right to be heard were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while expeditious and efficient conduct of litigation is important, these principles should not be used to deny a party the opportunity to be heard, especially where the absence of the advocate was explained and no prejudice to the respondents was demonstrated. The court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the suit without adequately considering the reasons for the advocate's absence and the lack of prejudice to the respondents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the dismissal orders were set aside, and the suit was reinstated for hearing before a different magistrate.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The dismissal orders made on 17th May, 2011 and 15th September, 2011 are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2011
SAMEER AFRICA LIMITED (Formerly FIRESTONE EAST AFRICA
(1969) LIMITED ................................................................... APPELLANT
VERSUS
MOLO MUOKI ..........................................................1ST RESPONDENT
KESHRA & SONS LIMITED .................................2ND RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the ruling of Hon. A.K. Ndungu, Principal Magistrate at the Chief Magistrate’s court (Milimani) Nairobi dated the 15th day of September, 2011 in Civil Suit No. CMCC 266 OF 2008)
J U D G M E N T
The Appellant’s suit in the lower court was dismissed on the date it was scheduled for hearing because its advocate was not in court. Thereafter an application was made to reinstate the suit which application was also dismissed by the same court.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed this appeal.
There are several grounds set out in the Memorandum of Appeal dated 3rd October, 2011 the thrust of which is that, the lower court erred in failing to take into consideration the reasons advanced by the appellant’s advocate for his failure to be present in court when the case was called out for hearing. The lower court was also faulted for not appreciating the provisions of Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act and also Article 22 (3) (d) of the Constitution.
Both parties have filed their submissions in canvassing of this appeal and cited several authorities.
It is true that litigation must be conducted expeditiously and efficiently. However, such principles should not be used to lock out the party who has conceived a legitimate expectation to approach the court for justice.
The Advocate for the appellant annexed the cause list of cases he was attending to before he eventually went before the lower court that dismissed the case. He did not abandon his client as such, but unfortunately when he reached the lower court the suit had already been dismissed at the instance of the advocate for the respondents.
I have looked at the record of the lower court. This was not the first time the case was coming up for hearing. On two previous occasions, the case had been listed for hearing and on one occasion it was taken out by consent to allow the respondent to amend the plaint. On one other occasion it was taken out at the instance of the respondents. It is on the third occasion that the advocate for the respondents asked for the dismissal of the suit.
The record does not say whether, other than the advocate, the respondent’s witnesses were in court.
I have looked at the pleadings. This was a material damage claim. It has not been alleged that any prejudice shall be visited upon the respondents if the appeal is allowed. I am of the view that the appeal presents several issues which should be canvassed by way of a full trial. I have formed the view that the appeal should be allowed by setting aside the two dismissal orders made on 17th May, 2011 and 15th September, 2011 respectively. The appellant’s suit is hereby reinstated.
The lower court file shall be returned for hearing before another magistrate of competent jurisdiction. The costs shall be in cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 28th day of May, 2019.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE