[2018] KEELC 1882 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 1882 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff's failure to attend court was due to the advocate's omission in failing to inform the plaintiff of the hearing date. The court held that the mistake of counsel should not be visited upon the client, especially where the client was not personally at fault. The court exercised its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 1882 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Sweetland Company Limited; Plaintiff: Hillary Kiboinett; Defendant: Transnational Bank Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 280 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
application allowed; suit reinstated
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Mistake of Counsel, Hearing Notice Service
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Reinstatement of Suit Dismissal for Non Attendance Mistake of Counsel Hearing Notice Service

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sweetland Company Limited

Plaintiff

Hillary Kiboinett

Plaintiff

Transnational Bank Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for non-attendance.
  2. 2 Whether the mistake of counsel in failing to inform the plaintiff of the hearing date should be visited upon the client.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's failure to attend court was due to the advocate's omission in failing to inform the plaintiff of the hearing date. The court held that the mistake of counsel should not be visited upon the client, especially where the client was not personally at fault. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the suit, finding that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for non-attendance. The court further ordered that the costs of the application be borne by the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

application allowed; suit reinstated

Orders

  • The orders made on 7.12.2017 dismissing the suit are reviewed and set aside.
  • The suit is reinstated with interim orders.