Ochieng (Suing on his Behalf and on the Behalf of the Residents of Gem Central Location) & another v Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & another (Civil Application E092 of 2024) [2025] KECA 919 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal reinstated a dismissed case because a lawyer's internet failed during a virtual hearing, confirming connectivity problems can justify a second chance.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant showed sufficient cause for non-attendance when the application dated 11th July 2024 was dismissed for non-attendance
- 2.Whether the reinstatement application was brought within the time prescribed by rule 58(3) and (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Key legal issues
#Whether connectivity problems during a virtual hearing constitute sufficient cause for reinstatement of an application dismissed for non-attendance
Yes. The court accepted the unchallenged explanation of counsel's connectivity problems, took judicial notice that such challenges are a lived reality, and noted the application was filed promptly the same day; reinstatement was granted.
The applicant satisfied both limbs of rule 58(3) and (4): the explanation for non-attendance was reasonable, acceptable and uncontradicted by the respondents, whose replying affidavit only asserted lack of merit. The application was filed the same day as the dismissal, well within the thirty-day window. The court found no indication of any intent to delay or obstruct justice and exercised its discretion in the applicant's favour, reinstating the conservatory-order application.
Legal principles established
#- Reinstatement under rule 58 requires both sufficient cause for non-attendance and an application made within thirty days of the decision, or of first hearing of it where the party was not served.
- A reinstatement application is decided without regard to the merits of the underlying application, which belongs to the court that will ultimately hear it if reinstated.
- The decision to reinstate or not to reinstate an application dismissed for non-attendance is an exercise of discretion, and the applicant must be deserving of the exercise of that discretion.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 11th July 2024 is reinstated
- 2.Costs shall abide the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 58(3) and (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the circumstance, the application dated 11th July 2024 is reinstated.
Costs shall abide the application.
The applicant must be deserving of the exercise of the discretion in his favour.
The merits and demerits of the application belong to the court which will ultimately deal with it, if it is reinstated.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ochieng (Suing on his Behalf and on the Behalf of the Residents of Gem Central Location) & another v Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & another (Civil Application E092 of 2024) [2025] KECA 919 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/919/eng@2025-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.