Asha Nasieku Teeka & David Saruni Teeka (Suing as the legal representatives of the late Ibrahim Tajeu Teeka-Deceased) v Maren Ole Pilale (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2019) [2019] KEELC 1925 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to reinstate a dismissed transfer application because the illness excuse was unproven, the suit was nearly over, and the applicant delayed two months.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal of the motion for non-attendance should be revisited on the ground of counsel's illness
The explanation of counsel's indisposition was insufficient because there was no deposition from Mr. Langat confirming instructions to hold brief, and counsel did not communicate his indisposition to opposing counsel or the court
Although documents showed Mr. Meingati was treated at Narok Cottage Hospital on 24 February 2019, he admitted he was able to communicate with Mr. Langat, so he could equally have contacted Mr. Karanja Mbugua, who might have consented to an adjournment. No affidavit or statement from Mr. Langat confirmed the holding of brief or his whereabouts at dismissal, leaving the explanation unverified.
Whether reinstatement would serve any judicial utility
Reinstatement would be futile because the underlying suit sought to be transferred had already been heard and was pending judgment
The motion sought transfer of Nakuru CM ELC No. 301 of 2018, but that suit had proceeded and was slated for judgment. Reinstating a motion for transfer of a matter already heard would only delay the case and not assist the administration of justice. The applicant's complaint about the conduct of the proceedings did not alter this position.
Whether the delay in filing the reinstatement application disentitled the applicant to the court's discretion
The unexplained delay of over two months between dismissal and the reinstatement application was unreasonable and weighed against exercising discretion in the applicant's favour
The application was filed more than two months after the motion was dismissed on 26 February 2019. No explanation was offered for why the applicant waited so long after counsel learned of the dismissal. Unreasonable delay of itself constituted an independent reason to refuse the discretionary relief of reinstatement.
Legal principles established
#- A court is not obliged to grant every adjournment application, and a party who opts not to proceed after an adjournment refusal cannot complain of adverse orders taken in its absence.
- The court's discretion to reinstate a dismissed application will not be exercised in favour of a party whose application, if reinstated, would serve no judicial utility, and unreasonable delay is a ground for refusing reinstatement.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 23 April 2019 seeking reinstatement of the motion dated 8 February 2019 is dismissed with costs
- 2.The motion seeking transfer of Nakuru CM ELC No. 301 of 2018 remains dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the High Court (Environment and Land Court) to reinstate a dismissed miscellaneous application, exercised in first-instance judicial review/miscellaneous jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Asha Nasieku Teeka & David Saruni Teeka (Suing as the legal representatives of the late Ibrahim Tajeu Teeka-Deceased) v Maren Ole Pilale (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2019) [2019] KEELC 1925 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Miscellaneous application dated 23 April 2019 (arising from motion dated 8 February 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1925/eng@2019-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.