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

Teita Estates Limited v Mwaluma & 91 others (Environment & Land Case 103 of 2007 & Civil Case 352 of 1998 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEELC 3468 (KLR) (26 July 2022) (Ruling)

[2022] KEELC 3468 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
3468
Citation
[2022] KEELC 3468 (KLR)
Decided
26 July 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureAppeal from a dismissal of the suit on account of non-attendance by the plaintiff's advocateCoramNA MATHEKA
Holding

The court reviews and sets aside the order dismissing the suit, reopens the plaintiff's case, and provides costs to the plaintiff

Facts

The plaintiff and its advocate were ready for a hearing on September 23, 2021, but the defendant and their advocate did not attend. The defendant filed an application for dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.

Issues

  1. To review and set aside the order dismissing the suit on account of non-attendance by the plaintiff's advocate
  2. To reopen the plaintiff's case and set a suitable hearing date
  3. To provide costs to the plaintiff

Reasoning

The court finds that the plaintiff and its advocate were ready for the hearing on September 23, 2021, and the defendant's non-attendance was due to the change of advocate and the application for dismissal.

Outcome

The suit is reopened and the plaintiff is provided costs

Orders

  • To review and set aside the order dismissing the suit on account of non-attendance by the plaintiff's advocate
  • To reopen the plaintiff's case and set a suitable hearing date
  • To provide costs to the plaintiff

Remedies

  • Reopening of the plaintiff's case
  • Costs to the plaintiff
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