Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2022] KEELC 723 (KLR)

Abdi Abkulla Tari v Election Co-Coordinator Iebc Isiolo North & 3 others [2022] KEELC 723 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (court not explicitly named in the excerpt; presided over by a Judge)
21 March 2022
PNP. M. Njoroge
249 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to delay a hearing so a defendant could file a counterclaim three years into the case, after asking for the earliest date.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short interlocutory ruling delivered by Hon. Justice P. M. Njoroge on 21 March 2022 concerning an adjournment application. The hearing date of 21/3/2022 had been fixed on 7/3/2022, on which date Advocate Caroline Wambui, appearing for the defendant, informed the court that the advocate on record was bereaved but that the defendant was willing to have the matter heard at the earliest possible date. When the matter came up on 21/3/2022, M/S Wangui, holding brief for Mr. Mwongera for the defendant, indicated that the defendant was not ready to proceed because Mr. Mwongera wished to file a counterclaim. Mr. Makaka for the plaintiff objected, pointing out that the hearing date had been taken in the presence of the defendant's advocate who had indicated a desire for the earliest hearing. The court agreed with the plaintiff's counsel, holding that the defendant's advocate should not have told the court he sought the earliest possible hearing date and that seeking an adjournment to file a counterclaim more than three years after filing was unreasonable and patently unconscionable vis-à-vis the plaintiff. The court ordered that the plaintiff's case proceed on that day, while the defendant's case would be heard on another date convenient to both parties. No costs order was made and no authorities were cited. The ruling does not disclose the case title, number or the parties' names.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to grant an adjournment to allow the defendant to file a counterclaim

Holding

The adjournment request was disallowed in effect; the plaintiff's case was ordered to proceed on the hearing date while the defendant's case was to be heard on another date convenient to both parties

Reasoning

The court noted the hearing date of 21/3/2022 had been given on 7/3/2022 in the presence of an advocate representing the defendant, who then indicated willingness to have the matter heard at the earliest possible date. On the hearing date, a different advocate holding brief sought time to file a counterclaim. The court agreed with the plaintiff's counsel that this conduct, over three years after filing, was unreasonable and patently unconscionable vis-à-vis the plaintiff.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A party whose advocate takes a hearing date and indicates readiness for the earliest hearing should not later seek an adjournment on that date to file a counterclaim, particularly after inordinate delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The hearing of the plaintiff's case should proceed today (21/3/2022)
  2. 2.The defendants' case will be heard on another date convenient to both parties
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Abdi Abkulla Tari v Election Co-Coordinator Iebc Isiolo North & 3 others [2022] KEELC 723 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/723/eng@2022-03-21

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