Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2020] KEELC 63 (KLR)

Cecily Karimi Mbaka v Grace Mwithi Maundu [2020] KEELC 63 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
7 February 2020
OAO.A. Angote
715 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court refused to reinstate a suit dismissed for non-attendance, finding the plaintiff gave no plausible reason after years of delays.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff filed an undated Notice of Motion filed on 18th July, 2019 seeking to set aside the orders of 30th May, 2019 dismissing the suit for non-appearance and want of prosecution, and to reinstate it for hearing. The application, supported by the affidavit of the Plaintiff's advocate, was unopposed. Counsel explained that the parties had been negotiating settlement; that on 29th May, 2019, the eve of the hearing date, he received two letters - one from the firm of Maosa & Co. Advocates indicating the Defendant's counsel had been bereaved and could not proceed, and another from Maumo & Co. Advocates indicating newly-arrived instructions and an intention to seek adjournment - whereupon he advised the client not to travel from Thika to Machakos and sent a representative instead; the court declined to adjourn and dismissed the suit. The court traced the suit's history: inactivity between 2015 and 2018, a notice to show cause on 2nd March, 2018, and successive 'very last adjournments' granted to both parties on 26th September, 2018, 19th November, 2018 and 7th February, 2019. Finding the reasons advanced not plausible and no good reason shown to review its order, the court dismissed the application with no order as to costs, holding that further latitude would bring the court into disrepute.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the dismissal of the suit on 30th May, 2019 ought to be set aside and the suit reinstated

Holding

The application was dismissed; no good reason was shown to review the dismissal order

Reasoning

The court reviewed the history of the matter: between 2015 and 2018 the Plaintiff never fixed the matter for hearing, and successive 'very last adjournments' were granted to both parties. Counsel's explanation - that the Defendant's advocates had written letters the day before the hearing, one pleading bereavement and one seeking adjournment - did not justify advising the client not to attend. The court had already, in its ruling of 30th May, 2019, declined further adjournment in view of the age of the matter and the many adjournments granted.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking reinstatement of a suit dismissed for non-appearance must give plausible and good reason for doing so, particularly where the suit has already been granted numerous adjournments
  • A court that has extended indulgence to parties in the prosecution of a suit may properly decline further latitude

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the Application dated 18th July, 2019
  2. 2.No order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the court to set aside its own orders (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cecily Karimi Mbaka v Grace Mwithi Maundu [2020] KEELC 63 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/63/eng@2020-02-07

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