[2021] KEELC 1290 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the delay in seeking reinstatement of the suit, particularly as there was no affidavit from the previous advocate to confirm the alleged destruction of their offices by fire. The court also noted the inordinate delay in bringing the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 1290 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Benson Chege Weru (Suing as the administrator of the estate of Weru Kabuku); Defendant: David Mwangi Weru; Defendant: Ngugi Njuguna; Defendant: Edward Ndung’u Mbugua; Defendant: Alice Njeri Munji
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 1639 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Suit After Dismissal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LC Komingoi
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Discretion of Court, Service of Notice, Delay in Prosecution
- 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
Benson Chege Weru (Suing as the administrator of the estate of Weru Kabuku)
Plaintiff
David Mwangi Weru
Defendant
Ngugi Njuguna
Defendant
Edward Ndung’u Mbugua
Defendant
Alice Njeri Munji
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Suit After Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has provided sufficient grounds to warrant the reinstatement of the suit after dismissal for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the delay in bringing the application to reinstate the suit is excusable.
- 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the delay in seeking reinstatement of the suit, particularly as there was no affidavit from the previous advocate to confirm the alleged destruction of their offices by fire. The court also noted the inordinate delay in bringing the application and the absence of any evidence to fault the service of the notice to show cause. As a result, the court held that there was no merit in the application and declined to exercise its discretion to reinstate the suit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to vacate the orders of 16th December 2011 and reinstate the plaintiff’s suit is dismissed.
- There shall be no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAIROBI
ELC CASE NO. 1639 OF 2007
(FORMERLY HCCC NO 1167 OF 2005)
BENSON CHEGE WERU................................................................................PLAINTIFF
(Suing as the administrator of the estate of WERU KABUKU) deceased
=VERSUS=
DAVID MWANGI WERU.....................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
NGUGI NJUGUNA...............................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
EDWARD NDUNG’U MBUGUA..........................................................3RD DEFENDANT
ALICE NJERI MUNJI...........................................................................4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This is the Notice of Motion dated 10th December 2020 brought under section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) Laws of Kenya, order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution, 2010 and all other enabling provisions of the law.
2. It seeks orders:-
1. That the honourable court be pleased to vacate its orders of 16th December 2011 and reinstate the plaintiff’s suit on such terms as are just.
2. That the costs of this application be provided for.
3. The grounds are on the face of the application and are set out in paragraphs (a) to (g).
4. The application is supported by the affidavit of Benson Chege Weru the plaintiff/applicant herein sworn on the 10th December 2020.
5. The application is not opposed
6. I have considered the notice of motion and the affidavit in support. The issue for determination is whether this application is merited.
7. In paragraph 4 of the supporting affidavit, the plaintiff depones;
“That I have bene informed by my advocates previously on record which information I verily believe to be true that their offices were accidentally destroyed by fire”.
However, there is no affidavit from the said Advocate of confirm the above averments.
8. This application has been brought after an inordinate delay. There is no evidence faulting the service of the notice to show cause by the court and there is no evidence on record to suggest that service was improper.
9. I am guided by the case of Utalii transport Co. Ltd & 3 Others vs NIC Bank & Another [2014] eKLRwhere Gikonyo J stated as follows:-
“…..the court held that it is the primary duty of the plaintiffs to take steps to progress their case since they are the ones who dragged the defendant to court. The decision on whether the suit should be reinstated for trial is a matter of justice and it depends on the facts of the case.
……I find this application has no merit and I dismiss it with no orders as to costs as it was undefended”.
The plaintiff/applicant herein has not demonstrated any justifiable reason to warrant this court to exercise discretion in his favour.
10. I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI ON THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021.
...........................
L. KOMINGOI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Paul Njihia for the Plaintiff
No appearance for the Defendants
Steve - Court Assistant