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

Mohamed Ramadhan Njoka v Zainabu Wambeti Ramadhani Njoka & another [2016] KEHC 3587 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 3587 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
3587
Citation
[2016] KEHC 3587 (KLR)
Decided
26 May 2016
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeSuccessionPostureApplication to reinstate dismissed applicationCoramR. Njue
Holding

The application should be reinstated upon the condition that the applicant pays court adjournment fees in the sum of Kshs. 2000/-. The applicant should also pay costs to the respondent in respect of this application before the next hearing date.

Facts

The applicant's application for revocation of grant dated 23/02/2012 was dismissed on 9/11/2015 for non-attendance. The application was initially scheduled for hearing on 24/09/2015 but coincided with a Muslim Holy Holiday. The applicant claims he was unaware of the hearing date.

Issues

  1. Whether the dismissal of the application was valid due to non-attendance
  2. Whether the applicant's counsel was properly represented in the registry
  3. Whether the application should be reinstated

Reasoning

The court finds that the applicant's counsel was represented in the registry when the hearing date was fixed by consent on 9/11/2015. The court reinstates the application due to the lack of compelling evidence for dismissal.

Outcome

Application to reinstate dismissed application

Orders

  • The applicant should pay court adjournment fees in the sum of Kshs. 2000/-.
  • The applicant should pay costs to the respondent in respect of this application before the next hearing date.

Remedies

  • Reinstatement of the application

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Civil Procedure Act
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