[2020] KEHC 9402 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 9402 (KLR)

The court found that the Defendant's failure to attend court on 17th October 2019 was due to a genuine mistake by counsel, specifically a mis-diarisation of the hearing date. The court held that it would be unjust to punish the Defendant for the error of their advocate. Consequently, the court exercised its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 9402 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Samuel Wandera; Plaintiff: Moses Juma Majonda; Defendant: Mastermind Tobacco (K) Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 75 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Application
Outcome
Application allowed. Orders of 17th October 2019 set aside. Defendant's application dated 9th July 2019 reinstated. Costs to Defendant.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Reinstatement of Application, Non Attendance, Mistake of Advocate
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Orders Reinstatement of Application Non Attendance Mistake of Advocate

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Wandera

Plaintiff

Moses Juma Majonda

Plaintiff

Mastermind Tobacco (K) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Application

  1. 1 Whether the court should set aside its order dismissing the Defendant's application for non-attendance.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's application should be reinstated for hearing and determination.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant should bear the costs of the present application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant's failure to attend court on 17th October 2019 was due to a genuine mistake by counsel, specifically a mis-diarisation of the hearing date. The court held that it would be unjust to punish the Defendant for the error of their advocate. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the order dismissing the Defendant's application and ordered the reinstatement of the application for hearing and determination. The court, however, directed that the costs of the present application be borne by the Defendant.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Orders of 17th October 2019 set aside. Defendant's application dated 9th July 2019 reinstated. Costs to Defendant.

Orders

  • The court's order of 17th October 2019 dismissing the Defendant's application is set aside.
  • The Defendant's application dated 9th July 2019 is reinstated for hearing and determination.