[2019] KEHC 5750 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's advocate's explanation for non-attendance on 30/01/2019 was not truthful, as the record showed that Mr. Mutune did appear and held brief for the applicant's advocate, contrary to the affidavit's averments. Despite this, the court considered the interests of justice and the need...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 5750 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stanley Mange’eli; Respondent: Phoenix of E.A Assurance Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Makueni
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 154 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed conditionally.
- Judges
- CM Kariuki
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Orders, Reinstatement of Application, Non Attendance, Costs Award
- 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
Stanley Mange’eli
Applicant
Phoenix of E.A Assurance Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dismissal order dated 30/01/2019 should be set aside and the application dated 16/11/2018 reinstated for hearing on merit.
- 2 Whether the applicant's advocate's explanation for non-attendance on 30/01/2019 is credible and sufficient.
- 3 Whether the court should exercise discretion to reinstate the application despite misleading information by the applicant's advocate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's advocate's explanation for non-attendance on 30/01/2019 was not truthful, as the record showed that Mr. Mutune did appear and held brief for the applicant's advocate, contrary to the affidavit's averments. Despite this, the court considered the interests of justice and the need to avoid multiplicity of applications. The court exercised its discretion to allow the application for reinstatement, but imposed a personal cost sanction on the applicant's advocate for misleading the court. The reinstatement was conditional upon payment of Kshs.10,000 to the respondent within 14 days, failing which the application would stand dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
Application allowed conditionally.
Orders
- The application dated 05/02/2019 is allowed as prayed in prayers 2 and 3 on condition that Kshs.10,000 is paid to the respondent within 14 days by Uvyu advocate personally.
- In default of payment within 14 days, the application will stand dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MAKUENI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 154 OF 2018
STANLEY MANGE’ELI............................................................................APPICANT
-VERSUS-
PHOENIX OF E.A ASSURANCE CO. LTD......................................RESPONDENT
(From original Criminal Case No. 144 of 2014 at SRM’S court at Kilungu)
RULING
Introduction:
1. The Applicant via a notice of notion dated 05/02/2019 seeks the order dated 30/01/2019 be set aside and that Application dated 16/11/2018 be reinstated and heard on merit inter alia.
2. The application is premised on the provisions of Order 12 Rule 7 and Order 51 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Rule, 2010 and Section 1A, 1B and 3A CPA Cap 21 Laws of Kenya.
3. It is based on the grounds that the application was for inter parte hearing on 30/01/2019 but same was dismissed for non-attendance of all the parties.
4. The Applicant avers that his advocate gave another advocate brief to prosecute same application but he was not present when the case was called out in the courtroom, thus the same was dismissed for non-attendance.
5. Thus the applicant seeks same to be reinstated for hearing on merit.
6. The same is supported by affidavit of Muendo Muasa Uvyu sworn on 05/02/2019 which reiterates the grounds above.
7. The Respondent has not filed replying affidavit as by 09/03/2019 when the ruling was prepared.
8. On 14/02/2019, the parties agreed that replying affidavit was to be filed within 14 days, that is by 28/02/2019. The time lapsed without any reply being availed to this court.
9. The application is deemed to be unopposed. The court still has to satisfy itself that the same is merited to be granted.
10. On 16/11/2018, the application came for hearing under certificate of urgency and the court granted temporary orders for stay and directed same to be served for inter parte hearing on 21/11/2018.
11. On 21/11/2018, the Respondent did not attend when matter came for hearing despite being served. There was no replying affidavit to oppose it.
12. The court granted prayer no. 3 and directed same to be heard on 30/01/2019 and trial court file was ordered to be availed to court by that day.
13. Come on 30/11/2019, the Respondent this time was represented and had filed replying affidavit to oppose the application.
14. However, the Applicant was not present and thus the court dismissed the same for non-attendance. On 11/02/2019, the applicant presented now the instant application under Certificate of urgency as the aforesaid dismissal automatically vacated interim stay orders thus the danger of execution being levied against Applicant.
15. The matter was fixed for inter parte hearing on 14/02/2019. The supporting affidavit state that on 30/01/2019, advocate Mutune was to hold brief for Applicant advocate but he was not in court when matter was called and dismissed.
16. Mr. Mutune has not sworn an affidavit to confirm that. However, the record of 30/01/2019, shows that, the same Mutune advocate appeared in court in the same file and held brief for Mutuku advocate.
17. The averment by Uvyu advocate is thus not reflecting the truth. Thus the aforesaid statement above is enough ground to dismiss this application for misleading court.
18. However, the court is always called to temper justice with mercy for the interest of justice.
19. To avoid multiplicity of applications and to expedite the matter, the court will indulge the applicant but with a price to be paid by the Applicant’s advocate.
20. Thus the court thus makes the following orders: -
1) The application herein dated 05/02/2019 is allowed as prayed in prayers 2&3 on condition that Kshs.10,000/= is paid to the Respondent within 14 days by Uvyu advocate personally.
2) In default of the above (1) the application will stand dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MAKUENI THIS 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019.
......................
C. KARIUKI
JUDGE