Mary Mwalia Kisasa & 6 others v Gapco (K) Limited [2015] KEELC 834 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court refused to revive a dismissed land suit because the plaintiffs used the wrong legal procedure instead of appealing or seeking review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competence of the application to set aside a dismissal order
The application failed because it was brought under the wrong provisions and sought to challenge a decision rendered on merits by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction
Order 17 rule 2 provides for dismissal of suits for want of prosecution but not for setting aside such dismissal orders. The proper route to challenge the ruling of 30th October 2014 was an appeal or an application for review under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rules 1 and 2, neither of which was invoked. The ruling was reached on merits, and mistake of counsel is not a review ground.
Legal principles established
#- A court of concurrent jurisdiction cannot sit on appeal over a decision of another judge of the same court; the proper remedies are appeal or review under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45
- Mistake of counsel in failing to fix a matter for hearing is not a ground for review
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 23rd December 2014 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 17 rule 2 and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mary Mwalia Kisasa & 6 others v Gapco (K) Limited [2015] KEELC 834 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2015/834/eng@2015-11-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.