[2014] KEHC 1948 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's counsel had mistakenly used the wrong case number when seeking a hearing date, which led to the inability to trace the file and subsequent dismissal for want of prosecution. There was no evidence that a notice to show cause was served on the parties prior to dismissal. In the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 1948 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Beth Wangari Njoroge; Respondent: Njeri Mwangi Njoroge; Respondent: The Chairman Gatanga Land Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: The Chief Magistrate, Thika
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 823 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
- Outcome
- Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; suit reinstated.
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Notice to Show Cause, Case Number Confusion
- 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
Beth Wangari Njoroge
Applicant
Njeri Mwangi Njoroge
Respondent
The Chairman Gatanga Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
The Chief Magistrate, Thika
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution without notice to the applicant or her advocates.
- 2 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for reinstatement of the suit.
- 3 Whether the interests of justice require the setting aside of the dismissal order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's counsel had mistakenly used the wrong case number when seeking a hearing date, which led to the inability to trace the file and subsequent dismissal for want of prosecution. There was no evidence that a notice to show cause was served on the parties prior to dismissal. In the absence of such notice, and given the confusion over the case number, the court held that the dismissal was irregular. The interests of justice required that the applicant be given an opportunity to prosecute the suit on its merits. Accordingly, the court set aside the dismissal order and reinstated the suit for hearing.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; suit reinstated.
Orders
- The order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution is set aside.
- The suit is reinstated for hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE NO. 823 0F 2007
BETH WANGARI NJOROGE……………………….......................…………APPLICANT
VERSUS
NJERI MWANGI NJOROGE…………………………........................1ST RESPONDENT
THE CHAIRMAN GATANGA LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL………2ND RESPONDENT
THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE, THIKA……………….........................…3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
Through a Notice of Motion dated 2nd July, 2014, the Applicant (Beth Wangari Njoroge) has come to Court, seeking the following orders:
“1. This application be certified as urgent, service be dispensed with and it be heard expartein the first instance.
The order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution be set aside.
The suit be reinstated and set for hearing.
The costs of this application be in the cause.
Such other orders as the Honourable Court shall deem fit to grant in addition.”
The application is premised on the grounds:
“1. THAT the suit was dismissed suo moto without notice to the applicant or her advocates on record.
THAT there was a genuine confusion as to the correct case number of this matter after it was transferred from the Nyeri High Court to Nairobi High Court.
THAT the applicant/1st Respondent, through her advocates, made efforts to have the suit prosecuted but was advised that the court file could not be traced based on the erroneous case number.
THAT the Respondent’s rights and interest will be highly compromised if the suit is not re- instated for hearing and determination on the merits.
THAT it is in the interests of justice that this suit be reinstated for hearing and determination based on the merits.”
The application is also supported by the affidavit of the advocate of the Applicant Mr Victor Kimani Mungai sworn on the 2nd July, 2014. He avers that the case was instituted in the High Court at Nyeri through the Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 191 of 2003. Pursuant to a Legal Notice issued by the Chief Justice the matter was transferred to Nairobi High Court and given a new number namely Nairobi High Court J. R. Case No. 823 of 2007.
The Applicant’s advocate avers that the matter was to be heard before Justice Kubo on 16th February, 2009 but owing to the absence of the Applicant’s advocate due to sickness the Court ordered fresh hearing dates to be taken.Thereafter efforts were made to fix a hearing date without success. On 8th March, 2011, counsel for the Applicant sought to fix a hearing date but erroneously quoted the file as No. 823 of 2003. As such the file could not be traced in the registry.
The Applicant’s case is that it was only on 24th March, 2014 that they realized they had been citing the wrong number. Upon perusing the correct court file they discovered that the matter had been dismissed for want of prosecution. It is the Applicant’s case that the dismissal was done without notice. The Applicant therefore prays for the setting aside of the dismissal order and the reinstatement of the suit to hearing.
The question is whether the Applicant has established grounds for the reinstatement of the suit.
A perusal of the court file indeed shows that the Applicant’s counsel gave the wrong number when seeking a hearing date for the matter. Further interrogation of the court file does not reveal any evidence of service of the notice to show cause on the parties. This matter may have indeed been dismissed without notice. In the interests of justice, this application succeeds. The order dismissing the matter is set aside. The Applicant shall proceed to invite the other parties for a mention with a view to taking directions on the hearing of the substantive notice of motion.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 30th day of October, 2014
W. KORIR,
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT