Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedCivil Case filed 29/5/2009 (suit dated 29/5/2009)· [2013] KEELC 159 (KLR)

UMBISA MOSES GWEHONA v SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH OF EAST AFRICA UNION (SUED ON BEHALF OF KAHAWA WEST SDA CHURCH [2013] KEELC 159 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
19 March 2013
1,762 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court reinstated a suit dismissed for delay, ruling that a client should not pay for their lawyer's mistakes unless the opponent proves real prejudice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion dated 21/9/2012 seeking reinstatement of a suit filed on 29/5/2009 which had been dismissed for want of prosecution. The suit had been subject to a notice to show cause issued on 21/12/2011; on 2/2/2012 the court pardoned the plaintiff's counsel, Sherwin Mbogo Njoroge, and directed that the matter be set down for hearing within 30 days, failing which it would stand dismissed. Counsel did not comply. When the Defendant applied for dismissal, the court (Mwilu J.) ruled on 19/7/2012 that the matter stood automatically dismissed. The dismissal came to the firm's attention only when a consent forwarding settlement to the Defendant's advocates was met with the response that the suit had been dismissed. The supporting affidavit of G.N. Mugo explained that the firm had moved offices, misplaced the file, and relied on the departed advocate's reports that settlement was imminent. The Defendant opposed, relying on Naftali Opendo Onyango v National Bank of Kenya and Allan v Alfred, arguing the delay of a year after the file was recovered was inexcusable and prejudicial. Gacheru J, following Azangalala J in Commercial Bank of Africa Ltd v Martin Fares Miyesa and Chesoni J's test in Ivita v Kyumbu, held the delay was attributable to counsel's poor judgment, which should not be visited on the plaintiff, and that the Defendant showed no prejudice. The suit was reinstated, with throw away costs to the Defendant and strict timelines for compliance with Order 11 and setting down for hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an advocate's mistake should be visited upon the litigant

Holding

It would be unjust to punish the plaintiff for counsel's mistake; blame lay squarely on counsel

Reasoning

The court adopted the reasoning in Commercial Bank of Africa Ltd v Martin Fares Miyesa that cases belong to the parties and the sins of advocates should not ordinarily be visited on them. Counsel G.N. Mugo conceded the delay was due to her poor judgment in relying on the departing advocate's reports, so the plaintiff gave a plausible explanation for the delay.

p. 3
02

Whether the Defendant demonstrated prejudice from reinstatement

Holding

The Defendant failed to show any prejudice that would flow from reinstatement

Reasoning

Applying the Ivita v Kyumbu test, the defendant bore the burden of showing that justice could not be done due to prolonged delay or that it would be prejudiced. The defendant merely asserted delay without demonstrating concrete prejudice such as missing documents or witnesses, so the discretion to reinstate was properly exercised in the plaintiff's favour.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Sins of advocates should not ordinarily be visited on the parties
  • Test for inexcusable delay in dismissal for want of prosecution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit dismissed on 2/2/2012 and 19/7/2012 is reinstated and to be heard on merit
  2. 2.The Plaintiff to pay the throw away costs of the application to the Defendant
  3. 3.Parties to comply with the provisions of O.11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 30 days from the date of the ruling
  4. 4.Plaintiff to set down the suit for hearing within 60 days thereof
  5. 5.The court shall not entertain any further delay in the prosecution of the case
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (inherent powers of the court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "UMBISA MOSES GWEHONA v SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH OF EAST AFRICA UNION (SUED ON BEHALF OF KAHAWA WEST SDA CHURCH [2013] KEELC 159 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Civil Case filed 29/5/2009 (suit dated 29/5/2009). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2013/159/eng@2013-03-19

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.