[2020] KEELC 556 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 556 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or explanation for his absence on the material date and for the prolonged delay in seeking to set aside the dismissal order. The court noted that the suit was dismissed on 24th May 2019 and the application to reinstate was not filed until 4th...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 556 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Shem Nalainya Sipitali (suing through next friend and uncle Patrick Wafula Kaburu); Respondent: Musikiti Kusima Makhokha; Respondent: Attorney General (suing on behalf of Lands Registrar Bungoma County)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 20 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Right to Be Heard, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders Dismissal for Non Attendance Right to Be Heard Delay in Prosecution

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shem Nalainya Sipitali (suing through next friend and uncle Patrick Wafula Kaburu)

Applicant

Musikiti Kusima Makhokha

Respondent

Attorney General (suing on behalf of Lands Registrar Bungoma County)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds to set aside the dismissal order made ex parte on 24th May 2019.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the application to reinstate the suit is excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied the right to be heard due to circumstances beyond his control.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or explanation for his absence on the material date and for the prolonged delay in seeking to set aside the dismissal order. The court noted that the suit was dismissed on 24th May 2019 and the application to reinstate was not filed until 4th March 2020, with no acceptable justification for the delay. The court applied the principle that it is the plaintiff's duty to prosecute their case and that justice requires consideration of both parties' interests. The court concluded that the reasons advanced by the applicant were unacceptable, the delay was inexcusable, and the application lacked merit. Consequently, the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 11th March 2020 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.