[2008] KEHC 4015 (KLR)
The court found that the failure by the defendants' counsel to attend court on 29th September 2008 was more likely than not due to an error, as supported by an affidavit from an advocate who advised that the matter would not proceed. The matter was also not listed in the daily cause list. The court held that, in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 4015 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Vijay Morjaria; Defendant: Harris Horn Junior; Defendant: Harris Horn Senior
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 285 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order and Reinstate Application
- Outcome
- application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application reinstated
- Judges
- FI Koome
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Orders, Reinstatement of Application, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
- 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
Vijay Morjaria
Plaintiff
Harris Horn Junior
Defendant
Harris Horn Senior
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order and Reinstate Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should set aside the order dismissing the application dated 20th May 2008 for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the application to set aside was brought under the correct legal provisions.
- 3 Whether the applicant's conduct justifies the exercise of the court's discretion in their favour.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the failure by the defendants' counsel to attend court on 29th September 2008 was more likely than not due to an error, as supported by an affidavit from an advocate who advised that the matter would not proceed. The matter was also not listed in the daily cause list. The court held that, in the interests of justice and to avoid hardship resulting from excusable mistake, the order dismissing the application dated 20th May 2008 should be set aside and the application reinstated for hearing. The court emphasized that its discretion must be exercised to prevent injustice, and found no evidence of deliberate obstruction of justice by the applicant.
Court Disposition
application allowed; dismissal order set aside; application reinstated
Orders
- The order dismissing the application dated 20th May 2008 is set aside.
- The application dated 20th May 2008 is reinstated for hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CIVIL DIVISION
CIVIL CASE 285 OF 2004
VIJAY MORJARIA……...………..………………..…………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HARRIS HORN JUNIOR……………………………..………1ST DEFENDANT
HARRIS HORN SENIOR………….…………………….……2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The application dated 20th May 2008, was fixed for hearing on the 29th September 2008. However on that date, the matter was not listed in the daily cause list. The file was however brought to court by counsel for the respondent who urged the court to deal with the matter as the date was fixed in the presence of two parties. He submitted failure by the counsel for the applicant to attend court was not explained. He prayed that the application be dismissed for want of prosecution. The application was accordingly dismissed.
On the 6th October 2008, counsel for the applicant promptly filed another application under order 9B rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. This application seeks to set aside the orders of 29th September 2008, and to reinstate the application for hearing. The application is founded on the grounds that the matter was not listed on 29th September 2008. On 26th September 2008 the defendant’s counsel was informed by Mr. Karanja, that the Court file had been forwarded to the Court of Appeal for the hearing of CivilAppeal No. 64 of 2008, which was scheduled for hearing on 2nd October, 2008. It is also alleged that counsel for the plaintiff demanded, for the file to be forwarded to court when the matter was not listed, and urged the court to dismiss the application. This application was also supported by an affidavit of Lawrence Macharia Karanja who was to hold brief for Mr. Machira and who informed Mr. Machira that the matter would not be listed for hearing.
Counsel for the plaintiff, in opposition of this application, submitted that this application was brought under the wrong provisions of the law because this was not an ex-parte judgment that was entered. Moreover the court is called upon to exercise discretion, it is necessary for the court to look at the conduct of the applicant. The record will show that the applicant is bent on frustrating the execution of the decree. The date for 29th September 2008 was fixed in the presence of the parties. The normal practice is that, even if the matter is not listed, counsel would always appear before the judge. In any event the appeal was listed for 2nd October, 2008 and not 29th September, 2008.
In this matter, the court is called upon to exercise its discretion to set aside an order. It is to be noted that although the discretion is flexible, it is to be exercised on terms that are just to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence error or excusable mistake. Discretion cannot be exercised to assist a person who deliberately seeks to obstruct the cause of justice.
Going by the circumstances of this matter, it is more probable than not that there was an error on the part of the counsel for the defendants. He has attached an affidavit by an advocate of the High Court who advised him that the matter would not be proceeding on the 29th September 2008. It is more probable than not that is why counsel for the defendant did not attend court on the 29th September, 2008 when the matter was fixed for hearing. The matter was also not listed in the daily cause list. It is for those reasons that I will allow the application, set aside the order dismissing the application dated 20th May 2008. That application is reinstated for hearing. The costs of this application will be in the cause.
It is so ordered.
Ruling read and signed on 14th November, 2008
M. KOOME
JUDGE