[2017] KEHC 4370 (KLR)
The court found that the requirement under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for written notice to be served on the parties prior to dismissal for want of prosecution was not satisfied, as the only notice given was by posting on the court notice board. There was no evidence that the plaintiff received...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 4370 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Emmy Jerobon Bett; Defendant: Rael Cherop Maritim; Defendant: V.K. Saina; Defendant: Post Bank Credit Limited (In Liquidation)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 138 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Application for Review and Reinstatement After Dismissal
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application for review and reinstatement allowed; dismissal order set aside; suit reinstated for hearing on priority basis.
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Review of Court Orders, Service of Notice, Reinstatement of Suit
- 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
Emmy Jerobon Bett
Plaintiff
Rael Cherop Maritim
Defendant
V.K. Saina
Defendant
Post Bank Credit Limited (In Liquidation)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Application for Review and Reinstatement After Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for want of prosecution complied with the requirements of Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether notice of dismissal was properly served on the plaintiff as required by law.
- 3 Whether the suit should be reinstated in the interests of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the requirement under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for written notice to be served on the parties prior to dismissal for want of prosecution was not satisfied, as the only notice given was by posting on the court notice board. There was no evidence that the plaintiff received or became aware of the notice. The court held that in the absence of proper service, the dismissal was irregular. In the interests of justice, and considering the age of the case and the lack of fault on the part of the plaintiff regarding notice, the court set aside the dismissal order and reinstated the suit for hearing on a priority basis.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application for review and reinstatement allowed; dismissal order set aside; suit reinstated for hearing on priority basis.
Orders
- The orders of 8th June, 2015 dismissing the plaintiff's suit are set aside.
- The suit is reinstated for hearing on a priority basis.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIHG COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
CIVIL CASE NO. 138 OF 2000
EMMY JEROBON BETT...............................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAEL CHEROP MARITIM...............................................1ST DEFENDANT
V.K. SAINA......................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
POST BANK CREDIT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION).....3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
This matter comes up now before the court for the application by the plaintiff dated 14th December, 2015. The same by way of Notice of Motion, principally seeks that the orders made by the court on 8th June, 2015 dismissing the plaintiff’s suit be reviewed, and set aside and that this suit be reinstated for hearing on priority basis. The application has been opposed by the Defendant/ Respondent.
In his submissions, Mr. Sifuna for the applicant, submitted that the dismissal was during the Justice at last initiative and was done without issuance of Notice to Show Cause as required under O17(Rule (2)(1). That the case having been filed in 2000, the plaintiff has sought for justice for 17 years. That the plaintiff has attached several letters confirming that the court file had been missing.
And in opposing the application, Mr. Kiboi for the Respondent, submitted that this case was properly dismissed since the plaintiff failed to act as directed by the court. Counsel then submitted that under the Justice at Last notices were issued and posted on Notice boards and did not require physical service. And that for this case notice was put on the notice board and the plaintiff ought to have come to court to show cause. Finally, that any continued delay in this matter would cause the subject matter herein (tractor) to be wasted.
The 3rd defendant also opposed the application.
I have considered the submissions of the 3 learned counsel. I have also carefully perused and considered the pleadings filed herein both in support and in opposing this application. This application seeks to have the orders of the court made on 8th June, 2015 set aside and the suit re-instated for hearing. The circumstances leading to the orders of dismissal are fairly agreed by the parties. That the dismissal was done during the Justice At Last Initiative. That for this initiative, no personal service of notices were effected on the parties. But rather written notices were placed on notice boards of courts throughout the county.
I have considered the signed order dated 8th July, 2015. Same confirms that the dismissal order was pursuant to O17 Rule (2)(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The said Rule states:
“In any suit in which no application has been made or step taken by either party for 1 year, the court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed and if cause is not shown to its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit”.
My interpretation of the above provision is that notice in writing must be served on the concerned parties before an order of dismissal may ensue under the above Rule. In this particular case, it is conceded that such notice was only placed on the notice board at the court. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the Plaintiff got this notice or became aware of the same as to appear in court to show cause. It is for this reason that I am persuaded by the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that it is fair and in the interest of justice to set aside the said orders aggrieved of and to reinstate this case for hearing. I accordingly therefore allow the plaintiff’s application dated 14th December, 2015 in terms of prayer (5) of the same. In view of the age of this case, I also order that this case be fixed for hearing on priority basis. Each party to bear own costs of this application.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at ELDORET,this 28th day of June, 2017.
D.O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
Ruling read out in open court in presence of: -
1. Ms. Nasiloli for 2nd Respondent and h/b for Ms. Tigoi for 1st Respondent.
2. Mr. Sifuna is absent
D.O. OGEMBO
JUDGE