[2020] KEHC 1332 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 1332 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff's former advocate had not held a valid practicing certificate since 2013 and was not in practice at the time the Notice to Show Cause was allegedly served. As such, the Plaintiff could not be blamed for the failure to prosecute the suit, nor could valid service of the Notice to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 1332 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Tuletu Ole Kishapui Sabore; Defendant: Joseph Muigai Wanene; Defendant: The District Land Registrar, Kajiado
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 286 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
Plaintiff's application allowed; suit reinstated.
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Suit, Want of Prosecution, Service of Process, Representation by Advocate
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Reinstatement of Suit Want of Prosecution Service of Process Representation by 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tuletu Ole Kishapui Sabore

Plaintiff

Joseph Muigai Wanene

Defendant

The District Land Registrar, Kajiado

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff's suit should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether service of the Notice to Show Cause was valid given the Plaintiff's advocate was not in practice.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff should be penalized for the advocate's failure to act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff's former advocate had not held a valid practicing certificate since 2013 and was not in practice at the time the Notice to Show Cause was allegedly served. As such, the Plaintiff could not be blamed for the failure to prosecute the suit, nor could valid service of the Notice to Show Cause have been effected. The dismissal for want of prosecution was therefore based on a mistaken belief that proper service had occurred. In the interests of justice, the court set aside the dismissal order and reinstated the suit, allowing the Plaintiff to be represented by new advocates.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application allowed; suit reinstated.

Orders

  • It is declared that the firm of Kerina & Company Advocates has ceased to exist and can no longer represent the Plaintiff.
  • Leave is granted to A. H. Malik & Company Advocates to come on record for the Plaintiff.