1. By his Notice of Motion Application dated 14th May 2025, the Claimant/Applicant seeks that this Court be pleased to review, set aside and vary the dismissal order of 6th May 2025, together with all consequential orders. Further, the suit herein be reinstated for the purposes of hearing on merit.
2. The Claimant/ Applicant states that the suit came up for hearing on 6th May 2025, when it was dismissed for non-attendance. His non-attendance was not intentional but due to his phone breaking down on the day he was preparing to log in to the virtual court. His efforts to get another gadget to enable him to join were not fruitful.
3. The Respondents oppose the application through a replying affidavit sworn by Paul Okoth Ayub on 21st October 2025.
4. The Respondents argue that the Claimant/Applicant has not given any compelling reason to warrant the review, setting aside the orders of this Court of 6th May 2025, which dismissed his claim for non-attendance when the same came up for hearing.
5. Initially, this matter was scheduled for hearing on various dates, but the hearings did not proceed for a number of reasons; however, on 17th February 2025, this Court granted the Claimant a final adjournment to prosecute his case.
6. The hearing date of 6th May 2025 was set in the presence of the Claimant and the Advocates for the Respondents. The matter was dismissed after the call-over at around 10:30 AM, and the Claimant was not in court throughout the session.
7. The Claimant has not presented any evidence to show that his phone got damaged.
8. The Application should be dismissed for want of merit.
Determination
9. I have carefully considered the Claimant’s application, the grounds upon which it is anchored and the affidavit in support thereof, the Respondents’ replying affidavit, and the submissions filed, and a single issue emerges for determination: is the application merited?
10. Upon a careful review of the record, it is evident that this matter was ripe for hearing as early as September 2022. Since then, it has been adjourned on numerous occasions at the instance of the Claimant. The pattern emerging from the proceedings leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Claimant has not demonstrated diligence or sufficient interest in the expeditious prosecution of his case.
11. A party that seeks the setting aside or reversal of an order made in consequence of their non-attendance in court bears the burden of demonstrating a sufficient and credible reason for that absence. The discretion of the Court in such instances is not exercised as a matter of course; it must be invoked upon a cogent, plausible, and satisfactory explanation that would justify the Court in disturbing its earlier order.
12. The hearing date was fixed by consent. The Claimant does not state whether he bought a new phone after the alleged failure of his phone to enable him to join the virtual court, whether he repaired it, or what proof there would be. In my view, the Claimant was sketchy on this matter.
13. In the premises, and in the absence of any justifiable basis upon which the court can set aside the orders that the Claimant/ Applicant has sought, the application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
14. This file remains closed.
Read Signed and Delivered this 30th Day of April 2026.