Kitale Chepkorok Farm v Peter Nasasa & 4 others [2021] KEELC 2606 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court gave three defendants a second chance to present their defence—but only after paying costs quickly, or their case proceeds without them.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the defence case, deemed closed after counsel's failure to proceed, should be reopened
Yes - the court exercised its discretion in favour of the defendants, giving them their day in court, but on strict conditions including payment of assessed costs.
The court noted that although adjournment is discretionary and hearing dates must be taken seriously, the overriding objective under Sections 1A and 3A favours hearing cases on merit. The defendants' counsel's conduct was criticised, but the court found it would serve the interest of justice to allow the defence to be heard, subject to costs and default consequences.
Whether adjournment could be granted on mere verbal assertion of counsel's engagement in another court
No - the court declined to adjourn on mere verbal information without the cause list or evidence of the conflicting hearing.
The court had requested the Bungoma High Court cause list, which counsel failed to avail. It was unsafe to grant an adjournment on mere verbal information that counsel was engaged elsewhere, and counsel could not presume an adjournment as of right by invoking a hearing before a court of equal status.
Legal principles established
#- Hearing dates once taken must be taken seriously and adjournments require demonstration of sufficient cause supported by evidence where necessary.
- Counsel holding brief is presumed to have full instructions save in very extreme situations.
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 8/2/2021 allowed; defendants granted opportunity to be heard on their defence
- 2.Costs of the application assessed at Kshs. 10,000/= borne by the applicants jointly and severally within 3 days, in default of which the orders granted shall be deemed automatically vacated and the matter shall go to judgment
- 3.Suit to be mentioned on 19/7/2021 by teleconference to fix a fresh hearing date for the defence case if applicants comply
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (inherent powers)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kitale Chepkorok Farm v Peter Nasasa & 4 others [2021] KEELC 2606 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/2606/eng@2021-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.