Paul Keroro Okemwa v Dora Nyakinyua Matandi & another [2018] KEELC 605 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to reinstate a dismissed land case because the lawyer's excuse for missing court lacked evidence and detail.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether to set aside the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution
The application was dismissed because no valid reasons were shown for counsel's failure to attend court on the date the suit was dismissed.
The court applied the Mbogoh v Shah principles as restated in James Kanyiita Nderitu, noting the unfettered but judicious discretion. Counsel claimed to have been held up in another court but gave no details of the court, no cause list, and no reason why another advocate could not deputise. He also failed to give reasons in his affidavit why the suit should not be dismissed had he attended, and his explanations in submissions were not evidence.
Legal principles established
#- The court has an unfettered but judicious discretion whether or not to set aside an order of dismissal made after due service, guided by the principles in Mbogoh & Another v Shah.
- Factual explanations offered only in submissions do not constitute evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Notice of Motion dated 12th July 2017 dismissed with costs to the defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion to reinstate a suit dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Paul Keroro Okemwa v Dora Nyakinyua Matandi & another [2018] KEELC 605 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Notice of Motion dated 12th July 2017 (suit dismissed 30th March 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/605/eng@2018-11-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.