Zacharia Imbochi v Leopard Beach Resort & Spa
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal dismissed a litigant's attempt to revive his application, ruling that excuses based on wrong email addresses must be honest and made within 30 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Sufficient cause for non-attendance
The applicant did not demonstrate sufficient cause; the claimed wrong email address was an address he himself had supplied, and his explanation shifted and was contrived
The applicant alleged the hearing notice went to a wrong email address, but the record showed the notice was sent to both email addresses he had disclosed in his own application. In submissions he introduced a third, previously unknown address. The court held that a supplicant for discretionary relief must demonstrate bona fides, and an explanation resting on contrived grounds cannot amount to sufficient cause under rule 58(3).
Compliance with the 30-day timeline in rule 58(4)
The applicant failed to bring himself within rule 58(4) because he did not disclose the date he first learned of the dismissal
Rule 58(4) requires a reinstatement application within 30 days of the decision, or within 30 days of first hearing of the decision by a party who was not served. The applicant alleged he learned of the dismissal only on visiting the registry but never disclosed the date of that visit. The court held this omission deprived it of the power to exercise discretion in his favour.
Scope of a reinstatement application
The court confines itself to whether sufficient cause and timeliness are shown, not the merits of the underlying application
Following Shah, JA, the court reiterated that on reinstatement it must not examine the merits or demerits of the dismissed application, lest it trespass on the territory of another judge should that application ever come up for hearing. The inquiry is confined to sufficient cause and the rule 58(4) timelines.
Legal principles established
#- Reinstatement under rule 58 requires the applicant to show sufficient cause for non-attendance and to file the application within 30 days of the decision, or within 30 days of first hearing of the decision where notice was not served
- An explanation for failure to attend court founded on contrived grounds is not bona fide and does not meet the sufficient-cause threshold of rule 58(3)
- A party who supplies contact details to the court cannot later claim they were wrong without notifying the court of any change; a supplicant for discretion must demonstrate bona fides
- A party seeking reinstatement who fails to disclose when they first learned of the dismissal deprives the court of the ability to exercise discretion under rule 58(4)
- In a reinstatement application the court must not consider the merits of the underlying application sought to be reinstated
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14th February 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 58(3) and (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (application to reinstate an application dismissed for non-attendance)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Zacharia Imbochi v Leopard Beach Resort & Spa", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/726/eng@2024-06-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.