Automated Summary
Key Facts
The plaintiffs (Abraham Kamakil & Hellen Kamakil) repeatedly failed to attend court hearings, including the last appearance on 2021-07-01. On 2021-09-29, the court dismissed their suit under Order 12 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for non-attendance. The defendant (Kipturgo Amdeny) opposed the adjournment, citing the plaintiffs' consistent absence and the case's age (2015 filing). The court directed the defendant to proceed with his counter-claim.
Issues
The court considered the plaintiffs' application to adjourn the hearing under Order 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, after they failed to attend previous sessions. The defendant opposed the adjournment, arguing that the plaintiffs had missed multiple hearings and the case was old. The court ruled that no valid reason was provided for the adjournment, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit with costs to the defendant.
Holdings
- The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs to the defendants after determining there was no valid reason for the adjournment application. The plaintiffs had failed to attend court sessions multiple times, and the court found no good cause for further delay.
- The court directed the defendant to proceed with his counter-claim following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' application for adjournment.
Remedies
- The court directed the defendant to proceed with his counter-claim.
- The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs to the defendants.
Legal Principles
The court applied Order 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (as amended in 2020), specifically Rules 3(1) and 3(2), which govern the consequences of non-attendance by parties in court. Rule 3(1) states that if only the defendant attends and admits no part of the claim, the suit is dismissed unless the court records good cause. Rule 3(2) addresses cases where the defendant admits part of the claim, requiring judgment on the admission and dismissal of the remaining case. These procedural rules were central to the court's decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit for non-attendance.
Cited Statute
Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (as amended in 2020)
Judge Name
Dr. Iur Fred Nyagaka
Passage Text
- Consequently I find no good cause for me to put on record to have this matter adjourned. I thus dismiss plaintiffs' suit with costs to the defendants. I also direct that the defendant proceeds with his counter-claim.
- The law regarding hearing and consequences of non-attendance of parties in court is governed by Order 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 as amended in 2020. Order 12 Rule 3(1) provides that 'if on the day fixed for hearing, after the suit has been called out for hearing outside the court, only the defendant attends and he admits no part of the claim, the suit shall be dismissed except for good cause to be recorded by the court'.
- I have carefully considered the arguments by both counsel and looked at the law that I have re-produced above. I have also perused the court record and I note that it is true as submitted by the defence that the record shows that the plaintiffs have never attended court the last three times and the court has accommodated them.