[2020] KEELC 296 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 296 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their absence on the hearing date of 11th March, 2020, despite the date having been fixed in their presence and that of their counsel. There was no evidence, such as a diary entry, to support the claim that counsel failed to diarize...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 296 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Zipporah Jepkemboi Korir; Plaintiff: Andrew Arap Rotich; Defendant: Ministry of Education; Defendant: Attorney General; Defendant: Elisha Busienei; Defendant: County Government of Uasin Gishu; Defendant: Belion Contractors; Defendant: Rift Valley Technical Training Institute
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 56 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
SM Kibunja
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Non Attendance, Reinstatement of Suit, Inordinate Delay, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Non Attendance Reinstatement of Suit Inordinate Delay Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zipporah Jepkemboi Korir

Plaintiff

Andrew Arap Rotich

Plaintiff

Ministry of Education

Defendant

Attorney General

Defendant

Elisha Busienei

Defendant

County Government of Uasin Gishu

Defendant

Belion Contractors

Defendant

Rift Valley Technical Training Institute

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiffs have made a reasonable case for the dismissal order issued on 11th March, 2020 to be set aside and the suit reinstated for hearing.
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their absence on the hearing date of 11th March, 2020, despite the date having been fixed in their presence and that of their counsel. There was no evidence, such as a diary entry, to support the claim that counsel failed to diarize the date. Additionally, the Plaintiffs did not explain why the application to set aside the dismissal was not filed until over three months after the dismissal order. The court held that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and that the Plaintiffs had not demonstrated diligence in prosecuting their case. The application to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the suit...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 16th March, 2020 is dismissed with costs to the Defendants.