[2021] KEELC 1398 (KLR)
The court held that the responsibility to ensure timely prosecution of a suit rests with the litigant, not merely the advocate. The plaintiff failed to provide a plausible explanation for not prompting his advocate to fix the matter for hearing or for the prolonged inactivity exceeding one year. The court found the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 1398 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Alex Sammy Kilonzo; Defendant: County Government of Kitui
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 132 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Advocate Negligence, Pre Trial Directions
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alex Sammy Kilonzo
Plaintiff
County Government of Kitui
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the suit should be reinstated for hearing on its merits.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the suit was excusable due to advocate's negligence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the responsibility to ensure timely prosecution of a suit rests with the litigant, not merely the advocate. The plaintiff failed to provide a plausible explanation for not prompting his advocate to fix the matter for hearing or for the prolonged inactivity exceeding one year. The court found the application to reinstate the suit unmeritorious, as the plaintiff did not demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay or for setting aside the dismissal order. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 10th March, 2021 is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC CASE NO. 132 OF 2016
ALEX SAMMY KILONZO............................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KITUI.......................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In the Application dated 10th March, 2021, the Plaintiff has prayed for the following orders:
a) That this Honourable court be pleased to set aside and or vary the order issued on the 28th February, 2019 dismissing the suit herein for want of prosecution thereto.
b) That this Honourable court be pleased to re-instate the suit herein so that it can be heard and determined on merit.
c) That the costs of this application be provided for.
2. The Application is supported by the Affidavit of the Plaintiff who has deponed that he instructed the firm of O.N Makau and Mulei Co. Advocates to take conduct of this matter on his behalf and file a Plaint and an Application for injunctive orders.
3. The Plaintiff deponed that the Plaint in this matter was duly filed on 28th September, 2016; that the Notice of Motion for injunctive orders was also filed but was later on withdrawn on 29th March, 2019 and that the court issued pre-trial directions on 1st May, 2019.
4. It was deponed by the Plaintiff that he has been advised by his advocate that the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution by the court on 28th February, 2019 and that the notice leading to the dismissal of the suit was due to non-attendance by the advocate who had conduct of the matter and who is no longer working in the law firm of O. N. Makau and Mulei Company Advocates.
5. It was deponed that although it was true that the last action was taken on 1st May, 2017, the failure to prosecute the matter was caused by lack of due diligence by the advocate who was handling the matter on behalf of the firm thus occasioning advocate’s the non-attendance to prosecute the matter on his behalf. According to the Plaintiff, the actions of his former advocate should not be visited on him. The Defendant did not file a response to the Application.
6. This suit was commenced by way of a Plaint dated 26th September, 2016. Together with the Plaint, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion dated 28th September, 2016. The said Application was withdrawn on 29th March, 2017. On the same day the Application was withdrawn, the court directed that the matter to be mentioned on 1st May, 2017 for pre-trial directions. The record shows that the matter was not mentioned on the said date, or on any other date.
7. The record shows that the court served the Plaintiff’s advocate with the Notice to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The said notice came up for hearing on 28th February, 2019. However, neither the Plaintiff nor his advocate were present on that day. The Plaintiff’s suit was dismissed by the court for having failed to prosecute the suit for more than one (1) year.
8. The Plaintiff has deponed that the failure to prosecute the matter was caused by lack of due diligence by the advocate who was handling the matter on behalf of the law firm thus occasioning the non-attendance to prosecute the matter on his behalf. According to the Plaintiff, the actions of his former advocate should not be visited on him.
9. The Plaintiff’s attempts to blame the counsel who was handling the matter for the dismissal of the suit cannot pass. I say so because the responsibility to ensure that a suit is prosecuted timeously is always with the litigant. It was upon the Plaintiff to check on the position of the suit and prompt his advocate to fix the matter for hearing.
10. Considering that the Plaintiff has not offered an explanation as to why he did not prompt his advocates to fix the matter for hearing before the lapse of one year, and having not offered any plausible explanation why the matter stayed in abeyance for more than one year, I find the Application dated 10th March, 2021 to be unmeritorious.
11. For those reasons, I dismiss the Application dated 10th March, 2021 with no order as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN MACHAKOS THIS 22ND OCTOBER, 2021.
O. A. ANGOTE
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Ms Kamene for the Plaintiff
N/A for the Defendant
Court Assistant – John Okumu