[2018] KEELC 3497 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable cause for the inactivity in prosecuting the suit for over a year following the ruling delivered on 22nd June 2016. The hospital records provided by the Plaintiff only accounted for a two-week period of incapacity in February 2017, which did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3497 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Chispine Onyango Otieno; Defendant: Thomas Francis Ouma Otieno; Defendant: John Owino Otieno
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 41 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Order 17 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Rules, Land Dispute, Reasonable Cause Requirement
- 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
Chispine Onyango Otieno
Plaintiff
Thomas Francis Ouma Otieno
Defendant
John Owino Otieno
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff has shown reasonable cause why his suit should not have been dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Who should bear the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable cause for the inactivity in prosecuting the suit for over a year following the ruling delivered on 22nd June 2016. The hospital records provided by the Plaintiff only accounted for a two-week period of incapacity in February 2017, which did not explain the prolonged inactivity from June 2016 to July 2017. The Plaintiff's claim of arriving late to court on the date of the notice to show cause was unsupported by any evidence on record. Consequently, the court held that the Plaintiff had not met the threshold for setting aside the dismissal and reinstating the suit. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Plaintiff's notice of motion dated 30th October 2017 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KISUMU
ELC CASE NO. 41 OF 2012
CHRISPINE ONYANGO OTIENO..............................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
THOMAS FRANCIS OUMA OTIENO.............1ST DEFENDANT
JOHN OWINO OTIENO.....................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Through the notice of motion dated 30th October 2017, Chispine Onyango Otieno, the Plaintiff, seeks for setting aside and or vacating and reinstating his suit dismissed on the 19th October 2017. The Plaintiff listed four grounds on the face of the application which is supported by his affidavit sworn on the 30th October 2017 to which is attached among others, two documents from Ukwala Sub County Hospital showing that the Plaintiff had been attended there following a road traffic accident on the 14th February 2017.
2. The application is opposed by Thomas Francis Ouma Otieno, the 1st Defendant, through the grounds of opposition filed throughM/S Moses J. Orengo Advocates dated 13th November 2017.
3. The application came up for hearing on the 7th February 2018 when the Plaintiff in person and Mr. Orengo, learned counsel for the 1st Defendant, made their oral submissions.
4. The issues for determination are as follows;
a) Whether the Plaintiff has shown reasonable cause why his suit should not have been dismissed for want of prosecution.
b) Who pays the costs.
5. The court has after considering the grounds on the notice of motion, grounds of opposition, affidavit evidence, the oral submissions tendered come to the following findings;
a) The suit was commenced by the Plaintiff in person through the plaint dated 29th August 2012 and filed on the 31st August 2012. That the two named Defendants filed their joint statement of defence dated 20th September 2012 on the 24thSeptember 2012 in person. The Plaintiff filed his reply to the defence dated 16th November 2012 on that same date and obviously, the pleadings closed after 14 days thereafter in accordance with Order 2 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Rules.
b) That the 1st Defendant filed the notice of motion dated 23rd January 2013 seeking for the dismissal of this suit in view of Land disputes Tribunal case No.Siaya/94/2010 and Kisumu H.C CA No.193 of 2011 which had been decided. The Plaintiff then filed the notice of motion dated 22nd October 2015 seeking among others to set aside the order given on the 6th April 2011 in Siaya R.M. Land Case No.SYA/13/2011 and for stay of execution of the High Court order of 6th April 2011. The 1st Defendant appointed M/S Moses J.A. Orengo Advocate who came on record vide notice dated the 29th February 2016, and through whom the replying affidavit by the 1st Defendant sworn on the 29th February 2016 was filed.
c) The notice of motion filed by the Plaintiff dated 22nd October 2015 was heard on the 10th May 2016 and the ruling delivered on the 22nd June 2016 dismissing it with costs in the cause. That no other action was taken by the parties for over one yearby the time the court issued and served the Notice to show cause dated the 14th July 2017 under Order 17 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Rules. That it is apparent that both the Plaintiff and counsel for the 1st Defendant received the notice to show cause but the Plaintiff did not attend the court as required on the 19th October 2017 to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Plaintiff in reply to the 1st Defendant’s counsel’s submission, on the 7th February 2018 indicated that he had arrived late to court on that day of the notice to show cause. There is however nothing in the record or in the notice of motion dated 30th October 2017 to confirm that allegation.
d) That in deciding whether or not the Plaintiff’s application has merit, the court has looked at the grounds on the notice of motion, the supporting affidavit and the Plaintiff’s oral submissions to find out whether he has set out any reasonable grounds, that he would have presented had he attended court when the order to dismiss the suit was made. That the hospital documents attached to the supporting affidavit only confirms that the Plaintiff would not have taken any such step for the period of the two weeks that he was admitted in hospitalfrom 14th February 2017. That as the period of one year from the date of the ruling of 22nd June 2016 ended on or about the 21st June 2017, and that the notice to show cause was not issued until the 14th July 2017, the court finds that no reasonable cause has been shown why no action had been taken for more than one year.
6. That for the above reasons, the Plaintiff’s notice of motion dated 30th October 2017 is without merit and is dismissed with costs.
Orders accordingly.
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND – JUDGE
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 2ND DAY OF MAY 2018
In presence of;
Plaintiff Present
Defendants 1st present
Counsel Mr. Orengo for 1st Defendant
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND – JUDGE