[2019] KEELC 3730 (KLR)
The court found that the application for review and reinstatement of the suit, though filed almost a year earlier, was only recently served on the respondent. Given the delay in service and the respondent's request for time to respond, the court declined to certify the application as urgent. The court granted the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 3730 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Kinyua Bedford; Defendant: Co-operative Bank of Kenya
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 155 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Review and Reinstatement After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Procedural orders issued; no final determination on reinstatement at this stage.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, 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
David Kinyua Bedford
Plaintiff
Co-operative Bank of Kenya
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Review and Reinstatement After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should set aside or review the order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether sufficient reason exists to reinstate the suit for hearing.
- 3 Whether the delay in serving the application affects the urgency and progression of the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for review and reinstatement of the suit, though filed almost a year earlier, was only recently served on the respondent. Given the delay in service and the respondent's request for time to respond, the court declined to certify the application as urgent. The court granted the respondent 14 days to file a response, directed the applicant to file and exchange written submissions within 7 days after receiving the response, and allowed the respondent a further 7 days to file submissions thereafter. Directions for compliance were set for a future date. The court did not make a final determination on reinstatement but issued procedural orders to ensure both...
Court Disposition
Procedural orders issued; no final determination on reinstatement at this stage.
Orders
- The application is not certified urgent.
- The respondent is granted 14 days to respond.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO 155 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CASE NO. 106 OF 2012
DAVID KINYUA BEDFORD………………………………………....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA………………………...……DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This application is dated 3rd May, 2018 and was filed on 4th May, 2018. It seeks the following orders:-
1. That this honourable court be pleased to set aside/review the orders issued on dismissing this suit for want of prosecution.
2. That consequently the honourable court be pleased to reinstate by (sic) this matter for hearing.
3. Cost be in the cause.
2. The application has the following grounds:
a. That this application is meritorious as the parties are negotiating out of court.
b. That reinstating this suit shall facilitate fast and affective negotiation of this suit.
c. That I am ready to settle what is owed to the bank at any moment now.
d. That no party shall be prejudice (sic) if the orders are granted.
e. That there is sufficient reason why this application ought to be allowed.
3. When the application came up for interpartes hearing on 1st April, 2019, Mr.Murango Mwenda holding brief for Mr D. J. Mbaya, the defendant/respondent’s advocate told the court that he was not ready to proceed because the application had been served upon the defendant/respondent’s advocate on Friday, 29th March, 2019 only 3 days before today’s hearing date. He told the court that the advocates representing the parties had agreed that the defendant/respondent can respond and that all parties do file written submissions and take directions on 6th May, 2019. The plaintiff was represented by advocate Kirimi who was holding brief for advocate Linda Kiome, the plaintiff’s advocate.
4. The following orders are issued:-
1. In view of the fact that the application is almost one year old, having been filed on 4th May, 2018, and was only served upon Mr. Mbaya on Friday, 29th March, 2019, the application is not certified urgent.
2. The respondent is granted 14 days to respond as it has requested.
3. The applicant is to file and exchange written submissions within 7 days after receipt of the respondent’s written response and NEVERTHELESS whether the applicant files written submissions within the stipulated time or not, the respondent is granted 7 days after expiry of the period granted to the applicant to file and exchange its written submissions.
4. Directions to confirm compliance with court orders on 6. 5.2019
5. Costs shall be in the cause
Delivered in open Court at Chuka this 1st day of April, 2019
in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Kirimi hb Linda Kiome for the Applicant
Murango Mwenda h/b D. J. Mbaya for the Respondent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE