[2017] KEELC 2764 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs were not served with the ruling notice for the delivery of the ruling on 20th December 2013, as there was no evidence of service or acknowledgment by the parties. The absence of service deprived the plaintiffs of the opportunity to comply with the court's directive to set the suit...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2764 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Cecilia Gakui Kinyua; Plaintiff: Anne Muthoni Kanyeki; Defendant: Nyaga Gichenge; Defendant: Virginiah Njoki Nyaga; Defendant: Ann Wamaitha Muriithi; Defendant: Registrar of Titles, Kirinyaga
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 287 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and for Substitution/enlargement of Time
- Outcome
- Application partially allowed.
- Judges
- MM Gitumbi
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Dismissal, Service of Ruling Notice, Substitution of Parties, Enlargement of Time
- 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
Cecilia Gakui Kinyua
Plaintiff
Anne Muthoni Kanyeki
Plaintiff
Nyaga Gichenge
Defendant
Virginiah Njoki Nyaga
Defendant
Ann Wamaitha Muriithi
Defendant
Registrar of Titles, Kirinyaga
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and for Substitution/enlargement of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution should be set aside due to lack of service of the ruling notice.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted enlargement of time to substitute the 1st plaintiff and set the suit down for hearing.
- 3 Whether a temporary injunction should issue against the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs were not served with the ruling notice for the delivery of the ruling on 20th December 2013, as there was no evidence of service or acknowledgment by the parties. The absence of service deprived the plaintiffs of the opportunity to comply with the court's directive to set the suit down for hearing within 60 days or to substitute the 1st plaintiff. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order, revive the suit, and grant the plaintiffs 60 days from the date of the ruling to set the suit down for hearing and substitute the 1st plaintiff. The application for a temporary injunction was declined as the primary issue was procedural and...
Court Disposition
Application partially allowed.
Orders
- The order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution is set aside.
- The suit is revived and plaintiffs are directed to set it down for hearing within 60 days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ELC. CASE NO. 287 OF 2010
CECILIA GAKUI KINYUA…………...………1ST PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT
ANNE MUTHONI KANYEKI……….....………2ND PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
NYAGA GICHENGE ……………….…..………1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
VIRGINIAH NJOKI NYAGA……….……..……2ND DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
ANN WAMAITHA MURIITHI………...…..……3RD DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
REGISTRAR OF TITLES, KIRINYAGA….......4TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
Coming up before me for determination is the Notice of Motion dated 16th December 2014 in which the Plaintiffs/Applicants seek for the following orders:
1. That the court do set aside the orders made on 20th December 2013 dismissing this suit if the same was not set down for hearing within 60 days from that date;
2. That the court do enlarge the time within which the Plaintiffs/Applicants should substitute the 1st Plaintiff;
3. That the court do issue an order of temporary injunction restraining the 2nd , 3rd and 4th Defendants/Respondents from interfering with, trespassing, encroaching upon, entering, developing and alienating or disposing the suit property.
The Application is premised on the grounds appearing on its face together with the Supporting Affidavit of the 2nd Plaintiff/Applicant, Anne Muthoni Kanyeki, sworn on 16th December 2013 in which she averred that on 30th January 2013, the Defendants filed a Notice of Motion application seeking that the suit herein be dismissed for want of prosecution. She averred further that the Plaintiffs opposed the said application by filing Grounds of Opposition dated 8th May 2013. She further stated that after canvassing the said application before this court, the court directed that a ruling would be delivered on 8th November 2013. She added that on 8th November 2013, the ruling was not delivered and the court directed that the same would be delivered on notice. She further indicated that no ruling notice was ever served upon them. She further averred that since February 2014, she would frequent the ELC Registry to enquire when the ruling would be delivered and that she was advised that the ruling was not ready and they should wait to be served with a ruling notice. She added that she later came to learn that the ruling had been delivered on 20th December 2013. She further stated that she was shocked to learn that the court had directed in the said ruling that the Plaintiffs should set down the suit herein for hearing within 60 days from 20th December 2013, failure to which the suit would stand dismissed. She further stated that the court further directed that the 1st Plaintiff be substituted with a legal substitute without further delay. She averred that the period given to the Plaintiffs had lapsed even before they had sight of the ruling. She asserted that no notice of the ruling was ever served upon them or their advocates and in the circumstances requested the court to set aside the orders made on 20th December 2013 by allowing the 1st Plaintiff to be substituted and further enlarge time to allow the Plaintiffs to prosecute this suit to its conclusion.
The Application is contested. The 1st Defendant/Respondent, Nyaga Gichenge, filed his Replying Affidavit sworn on 7th July 2015 in which he averred that there is nothing to revive in this matter as the court delivered a sound ruling on 20th December 2013. He pointed out that it is one year after the delivery of the said ruling that the Applicant has now gone to court to seek for the same to be set aside. He added that the Applicants have the habit of going to sleep over this matter as they had been enjoying orders earlier issued on 19th January 2012. He added that all notices over delivery of judgments and rulings are clearly hanged on the court’s notice board for public attention and as such the Applicants should not be heard to claim that they were not notified. He also stated that the Applicant’s Advocates have their offices in Nairobi where most of their cases are. On those grounds, he sought for this Application to be dismissed.
The issue I am called upon to determine is whether or not to set aside the dismissal of this suit as ordered in the Ruling of this court which was delivered on 20th December 2013. The court’s decision on this issue revolves on whether or not the Plaintiffs/Applicants were duly served with the ruling notice informing them of the impending delivery of the Ruling on 20th December 2013. I agree with the position given by the Plaintiffs/Applicants that this court stated that the ruling would be delivered on 8th November 2013. On 8th November 2013, the court stated that the ruling would be delivered on notice. The Ruling Notice dated 16th December 2013 in which the court notified the parties that the ruling would be delivered on 20th December 2013 appears to have not been served on the parties. The Notice is there but there is no stamp of receipt of the same by either of the parties to this suit. Come 20th December 2013, this court proceeded to deliver the ruling in the absence of all the parties to this suit. In that ruling, this court gave certain timelines which were to be observed by the Plaintiffs/Applicants, specifically that the Plaintiffs/Applicants had 60 days from that date to set this suit down for hearing failing which the suit stood dismissed. I am satisfied with the explanation given by the Plaintiffs/Applicants that they were not notified of the delivery of the ruling. On those grounds, I hereby review the ruling delivered on 20th December 2013 by setting aside the order to the Plaintiffs to set this suit down for hearing within 60 days from that day failing which this suit stands dismissed. This court revives this suit and directs the Plaintiffs/Applicants to set this suit down for hearing within a period of 60 days from today’s date. The 2nd Plaintiff has also been allowed to substitute the 1st Plaintiff within that period of 60 days from today’s date. I decline to issue the order of temporary injunction sought by the Plaintiffs/Applicants.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 26TH
DAY OF MAY 2017.
MARY M. GITUMBI
JUDGE