[2019] KEELC 2966 (KLR)
The court found that although it has discretion to set aside dismissal orders for want of prosecution, the Plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay in prosecuting the suit. The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant's absence prevented prosecution was not accepted, as the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 2966 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Danson Njogu Kibicho; Defendant: Kathenya Mwenda
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 34 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Judicial Discretion, Review of Court Orders
- 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
Danson Njogu Kibicho
Plaintiff
Kathenya Mwenda
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff has shown sufficient cause for the court to set aside or review the dismissal order made on 17th September 2018 for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff's explanation for the delay in prosecuting the suit is adequate to warrant reinstatement of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although it has discretion to set aside dismissal orders for want of prosecution, the Plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay in prosecuting the suit. The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant's absence prevented prosecution was not accepted, as the Plaintiff could have proceeded in the Defendant's absence if proper service had been effected. The court concluded that no sufficient cause was shown to justify reviewing or setting aside the dismissal order, and therefore declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the Plaintiff.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
Orders
- The Plaintiff's notice of motion dated 25th September 2018 is dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
E.L.C. CASE NO. 34 OF 2018
(FORMERLY HCC NO. 9 OF 2018)
DANSON NJOGU KIBICHO.................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KATHENYA MWENDA......................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. By a notice of motion dated 25th September 2018 brought under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21) and all enabling provisions of the law, the Plaintiff sought the following reliefs;
a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to set aside/or review its orders made on 17th September 2018.
b) The Applicant be granted leave to reopen the civil case herein and the case do proceed to hearing.
c) That costs of this Application be in the cause.
2. The said application was based on the grounds set out on the face of the notice of motion. It was supported by the Plaintiff’s own affidavit sworn on 25th September 2018. The reason for the application for reinstatement of the suit was that it was dismissed by the court for want of prosecution on 17th September 2018.
3. Although the Plaintiff contends that his suit was dismissed on account of non-attendance by his advocate on 17th September 2018 the record shows that the Plaintiff was present in person and that the court called upon him to explain his failure to prosecute the suit for several years. The explanation rendered was recorded but the court was not satisfied that it was a good or legitimate explanation. Consequently, the Plaintiff’s suit was dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
4. The Defendant filed a replying affidavit sworn on 11th February 2019 in opposition to the said application. It was contended that the Plaintiff had not been diligent in the prosecution of the suit which was filed 20 years ago. It was further pointed out that the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution after the Plaintiff had failed to prosecute it for about seven years after the default judgement in his favour was set aside.
5. When the said application was listed for hearing on 13th February 2019, the parties agreed to canvass it through written submissions. The record shows that the Plaintiff filed his submissions on 26th March 2019 whereas the Defendant filed his on 22nd March 2019.
6. The court has considered the Plaintiff’s said application, the Defendant’s replying affidavit in opposition thereto as well as the written submissions on record. The court is of the view that the only issue for consideration is whether the Plaintiff has made out a case for setting aside of the dismissal order made on 17th September 2018.
7. There is no doubt that the court has jurisdiction, in appropriate cases, to review and set aside dismissal orders where a suit has been dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The aggrieved party must, however, show sufficient cause for the court to exercise its discretion in his favour. The Plaintiff’s explanation that he could not prosecute the suit since 2011 because of the Defendant’s repeated failure to attend court cannot be a good reason. The Plaintiff was at liberty to proceed with the suit in the absence of the Defendant as long as the Defendant was duly served with the requisite notices.
8. The court is unable to find any good reason to review or set aside its dismissal order made on 17th September 2018. The Plaintiff is still unable to account for the lengthy delay in the prosecution of the suit. The court is therefore unable to exercise discretion in his favour in the circumstances of the suit.
9. The upshot of the foregoing is that the court finds no merit in the Plaintiff’s notice of motion dated 25th September 2018 and consequently, the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
10. Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED in open court at EMBU this 13TH day of JUNE, 2019.
Ms Maina holding brief for Mr. A.P. Kariithi for the Plaintiff and Mr. Yusuf holding brief for Mr. Nyabati for the defendant.
Court Assistant Mr. Muinde
Y.M. ANGIMA
JUDGE
13. 06. 19