Plaintiff v 1st Defendant
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff's notice of motion dated February 28, 2022 met the threshold for review of the court's orders of December 8, 2021
The application failed; the delay in filing the 1st defendant's application of January 25, 2019 was not sufficient reason for a review, and active case management principles favoured proceeding to trial.
The court considered the litigation history and its prior pronouncements on active case management in rulings of November 3, 2021 and December 8, 2021. With pre-trial directions given and a hearing date of June 20, 2023 in place, the court held that the timing of the 1st defendant's earlier application was not a sufficient ground for review. The right to be heard is a valued right, so the defence was not struck out and parties were directed to prepare for trial.
Legal principles established
#- The right to be heard is a valued right, and where a suit has a hearing date parties should focus on trial preparation rather than interlocutory applications.
- The lateness of filing an application alone is not sufficient reason to warrant a review of the court's orders.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated February 28, 2022 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent power of the court to review its own interlocutory orders (review of orders of December 8, 2021); specific provision not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Plaintiff v 1st Defendant", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated on the face of the judgment (ELC matter, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/510/eng@2023-01-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.