[2017] KEELC 2764 (KLR)

[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
Civil Procedure Land and Property Setting Aside Dismissal Service of Ruling Notice Substitution of Parties Enlargement of Time

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 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. 2 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted enlargement of time to substitute the 1st plaintiff and set the suit down for hearing.
  3. 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.