REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU CIVIL CASE NO. 12 OF 2012 (O.S) CHARLES MURIUKI M'MWARI...................................................................PLAINITFF VERSUS M'MBOGORI M'AMBUTU..........................................................................DEFENDANT RULING This suit was slated for hearing on 6th May, 2014. Court records show that the hearing date was obtained in the presence of both parties. During the date fixed for the hearing, the plaintiff was absent. The defendant's advocate made an oral application for the plaintiff's suit to be dismissed under the provisions of order 12 Rule 3, Civil Procedure Rules. The advocate complained that the defendant had been waiting in court since morning and now that it was five minutes to one O'clock, it was clear that the plaintiff was not serious in as far as the prosecution of his case was concerned. I have looked at the court records. They show that the plaintiff has been punctilious in his attendance in court on fixed dates. He should, therefore, be given the benefit of doubt, as the court does to know why he was not in court. The court also takes judicial note of the fact that the plaintiff, a lay man, represents himself. The court cannot authenticate the signature of the plaintiff but a cursory look at the signature purportedly signed by the plaintiff at the registry on 6.3.2014 when the apposite hearing date was fixed raises same suspicion. Even if it is confirmed that this is his genuine signature, his past court attendance record merits his being allowed a chance to have this case heard on its merits. I dismiss the defendant's oral submission. No costs are awarded to any of the parties. It is so ordered. Delivered in Open court at Meru this 24th day of July, 2014 I the presence of: Cc Daniel/Lilian Parties not in court P. M. NJOROGE JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.