SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Kenya Civil Aviation Authority & another v Micheni & 4 others (Suing on behalf of themselves and 63 other employees of the Directorate of Civil Aviation, a department within the Ministry of Transport and Communication) (Civil Application Sup 18 of 2014) [2024] KECA 13 (KLR) (25 January 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KECA 13 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
13
Citation
[2024] KECA 13 (KLR)
Decided
25 January 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil ApplicationPostureApplication for reinstatement of Notice of MotionCoramGW NGENYE-MACHARIA
Holding

The application is allowed, and the court's order of February 28, 2022, dismissing the application dated September 9, 2014, is set aside. The application dated September 9, 2014, is reinstated.

Facts

The applicants sought certification to appeal a judgment on April 4, 2014, but the application was dismissed on February 28, 2022, due to the applicants' failure to attend the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for reinstatement is merited
  2. Whether the dismissal of the application was due to the applicants' failure to attend the hearing

Reasoning

The court finds the application merited due to the applicants' failure to attend the hearing, which was not due to their own fault, and the right to a fair hearing is fundamental.

Outcome

The application is allowed, and the dismissed application is reinstated.

Orders

  • The court's order of February 28, 2022, dismissing the application dated September 9, 2014, is set aside.
  • The application dated September 9, 2014, is reinstated.

Remedies

  • Reinstatement of the application

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Court of Appeal Rules
Cases cited (2)
  • Ridge v Baldin (1964) AC (1963) 2 ALL ER 66
  • James Kanyiita Nderitu & another vs. Marius Phillotas Chikas & another (2016) eKLR
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case