1.This court vide a Ruling dated June 24, 2022 dismissed the plaintiff’s application that sought to reinstate the suit herein. In its determination the Court held as follows;
2.Aggrieved by the above determination the plaintiff has filed application dated June 29, 2022 seeking this court to review, vary and/or set aside its orders dated June 24, 2022 and thereafter proceed to reinstate the plaintiff’s case.
3.The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by Mercy Lamwenya, the plaintiff’s advocate who averred that the court in dismissing the suit visited the mistake of the advocate upon his client. That the plaintiff’s suit had been partly heard. That the plaintiff is desirous of prosecuting the suit to its conclusion.
4.That the plaintiff has a right to be heard, a right guaranteed in the constitution. The plaintiff has an arguable case with high chances of success.
5.That the plaintiff has been exposed to unnecessary hardship and legal liability and will continue to suffer irreparable harm if the suit is not reinstated and heard on merit. That the Orders sought herein if granted will not prejudice the rights of the defendants.
6.Despite service being made to the Defendant/Respondent they did not file any response to the application.
Analysis and Determination
7.I have considered the application and the supporting affidavit of the plaintiff/applicant’s advocate. The application ostensibly seeks a review of the court’s Ruling dated June 24, 2022. Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules sets out the requirements for an application for review as follows:
8.The application herein was made five days after the delivery of the Ruling. The application was therefore made without unreasonable delay.
9.In the case of Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo  EA 170 the court held as follows:
10.I have considered the application and find no new and important matter that could not be produced by the applicants at the time when the Ruling was made. Indeed, all the issues raised in the present application were same ones raised when the application was canvassed and upon which the court arrived at its ruling.
11.The applicant seeks to place fault on the courts determination which held that both the advocate and his client were at fault, the applicant seeks this court to make a finding that it ought not to have placed the mistakes of counsel upon the client. In its determination this court was steadfast that the cases belong to parties and not the advocates and where the principal considers that the advocate acted contrary to his professional instructions, he/she can sue him for professional negligence. The court cited the court of appeal decision in Tana & Athi Rivers Development Authority v Jeremiah Kimigho Mwakio & 3 others  eKLR where the court held that legal business should be conducted efficiently and we can no longer afford to show the same indulgence towards the negligent conduct of litigation as was perhaps possible in a more leisured age. See also; Patriotic Guards Ltd v James Kipchirchir Sambu  eKLR
12.As to whether there is sufficient cause to warrant a review of the court determination, the above analysis clearly shows that the court exercised its discretion judiciously. The same cannot be considered as an apparent error on the face of the record. The case herein has been in court for 12 years. This is the 2nd time the application for reinstatement of the suit has been made. The matter has not proceeded substantially since it had been filed. There is therefore no sufficient reason to review the courts determination.
13.The upshot of the above determination is that the application herein lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Orders accordingly.