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

KADET LIMITED V JOHN KAMUGO MWANGI [2012] KEHC 1655 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 1655 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1655
Citation
[2012] KEHC 1655 (KLR)
Decided
10 October 2012
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureAppeal from ex-parte orders dismissing an application for non-attendanceCoramM. K. Ibrahim, F. AZANGALALA
Holding

The court finds merit in exercising its discretion in favour of the applicant and allows the application, endorsing M/s Itonga & Co. Advocates and orders reinstatement of the interim orders granted by the court before the 10th June 2008.

Facts

The defendant filed an application under Sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking to vary and/or set aside ex-parte orders made on 10th June 2008 and to reinstate and set down the application for hearing. The application was based on the grounds that the defendant's counsel had instructed to attend court but could not due to inadvertence.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a stay in another court of competent jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the court should dismiss the application on the grounds of undue and explained delay and lack of evidence supporting the lack of diarization.

Reasoning

The court finds the applicant and their advocate diligent in all previous hearings and excuses a seldom mistake. The court also agrees that an error by an advocate should not be visited upon the client.

Outcome

The application is allowed, and the interim orders are reinstated.

Orders

  • Reinstatement of the interim orders granted by the court before the 10th June 2008.
  • Costs of the application to be borne by the applicant.
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case