Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the ruling (application dated 29th November 2019)· [2020] KEELC 3034 (KLR)

Paul Francis Njoroge v Annah Nduta Njoroge & 5 others [2020] KEELC 3034 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 April 2020
MOM. A. Odeny
559 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court reinstated a case dismissed for non-attendance, accepting a prompt, honest explanation as sufficient cause.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling by M. A. Odeny, J of the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret, delivered on 23rd April 2020, on an application dated 29th November 2019 seeking to set aside orders of 28th November 2019 dismissing the applicant's earlier application dated 14th November 2019 for non-attendance, and to have it set down for hearing. The plaintiff/applicant, through Mr Momanyi, submitted that there was no deliberate failure to attend court; the plaintiff was present but did not hear the matter called out, counsel arrived a few minutes after the dismissal, and the reinstatement application was filed a day after dismissal, with no prejudice to the defendants. Mr Chepkwony for the defendants/respondents opposed, arguing no sufficient reason or valid explanation was tendered and that the plaintiff would suffer no prejudice since the underlying suit was itself dismissed for lack of merit. The court framed two issues: whether the reinstatement application was filed without undue delay, and whether sufficient cause was shown for non-attendance. Relying on Okiya Omtata Okoiti & another v Okiya Omtata Okoiti & 4 others [2016] eKLR, quoting Musinga, JA, that sufficient cause must be rational, plausible, logical, convincing, reasonable and truthful, the court found the application filed without undue delay and was satisfied with the explanation in the supporting affidavit. The court allowed the application, reinstated the Notice of Motion for hearing on merit, directed the applicant to fix it for hearing within 30 days, and ordered the applicant to bear the costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether sufficient cause was shown for non-attendance on 28th November 2019

Holding

The court was satisfied with the explanation for non-attendance as deposed in the supporting affidavit, which left no doubt in its mind on the sequence of events.

Reasoning

Counsel for the plaintiff explained that the plaintiff was present in court but did not hear when the matter was called out, and that counsel arrived a few minutes after the matter had been dismissed for non-attendance. Applying the test that sufficient cause must be rational, plausible, logical, convincing, reasonable and truthful, the court found the explanation left no unexplained gaps and accepted it.

p. 2
02

Whether the reinstatement application was filed without undue delay

Holding

The application was filed timeously, a day after the dismissal, and the court found it was filed without undue delay.

Reasoning

Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the application was filed timeously, that is a day after the dismissal on 28th November 2019. The court, considering the submissions by both counsel, expressly found that the application was filed without undue delay, satisfying the first limb of the test for reinstatement of a matter dismissed for non-attendance.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Sufficient cause is a question of fact and the court must exercise its discretion in the varied and special circumstances of each case.
  • Sufficient cause must be rational, plausible, logical, convincing, reasonable and truthful, leaving no unexplained gaps in the sequence of events.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 29th November 2019 is allowed as prayed
  2. 2.The Notice of Motion dated 29th November 2019 is reinstated for hearing on merit
  3. 3.The applicant to fix the application for hearing within 30 days
  4. 4.Costs of the application to be borne by the applicant
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion to set aside dismissal for non-attendance / reinstatement of suit or application

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Paul Francis Njoroge v Annah Nduta Njoroge & 5 others [2020] KEELC 3034 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the ruling (application dated 29th November 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3034/eng@2020-04-23

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