Attorney General v Law Society of Kenya & another [2013] KECA 372 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to restore a dismissed case, ruling that traffic jams are not a good enough excuse for a lawyer missing a hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether counsel's failure to attend court due to vehicle breakdown, a road accident and traffic jams constituted sufficient cause under rule 56(3)
It did not. Counsel could and should have contacted opposing counsel or another advocate to hold his brief, and no explanation was given for the belated call to Mr. Ngatia.
The court found that despite knowing the hearing time and having Mr. Ngatia's mobile number, Mr. Ombwayo never called or texted him between 6.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. He contacted only unnamed colleagues in a meeting, though many other advocates were available in the Attorney General's office or outside. A diligent litigant would have sought an adjournment or notification. The explanation left unexplained gaps and did not meet the threshold of sufficient cause.
Whether the 30-day delay in filing the second application needed explanation
No - the application was filed within the 30-day period prescribed by rule 56(4), so the delay was immaterial.
Rule 56(4) requires an application under rule 56(3) to be made within thirty days of the decision. The first application was dismissed on 24th October, 2011 and the second filed on 23rd November, 2011, exactly within the stipulated period, so the court found it unnecessary to consider whether the delay was explained.
The meaning of "sufficient cause"
Sufficient cause is the burden placed on a litigant to show why a request should be granted or an action excused, and must be rational, plausible, logical, convincing, reasonable and truthful.
Relying on Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, the court defined sufficient cause as a burden on the litigant to justify indulgence. The explanation must leave no doubts in the judge's mind and no unexplained gaps in the sequence of events; counsel's account failed that standard.
Legal principles established
#- Sufficient cause must be rational, plausible, logical, convincing, reasonable and truthful, and must leave no unexplained gaps in the sequence of events
- An application to restore a dismissed application under rule 56(3) turns on whether the absent party was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the application was called on for hearing
- The discretion of a single judge on a rule 56(3) application is specifically circumscribed and narrower than the discretion on an extension-of-time application under rule 4
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 23rd November, 2011 seeking restoration of Civil Application No. 133 of 2011 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- High Court Petition No. 185 of 2005
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 4, 42 and 56(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules - application to a single judge to restore a dismissed application for hearing
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Osman v Gilani (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E079 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 801 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 801 (KLR)17 Feb 2026
- Ayora v Odhiambo & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7737 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7737 (KLR)11 Nov 2025
- Mohamed v Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited & another[2025] KESC 17 (KLR)11 Apr 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Attorney General v Law Society of Kenya & another [2013] KECA 372 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Civil Application (Nai.) No. 133 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2013/372/eng@2013-03-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.