[2017] KEHC 4914 (KLR)
The court found that the defendants had repeatedly failed to comply with pretrial orders under Order 11 and had been granted multiple opportunities to do so. The court determined that the request for adjournment was an attempt to further delay the proceedings without sufficient justification. The court exercised its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 4914 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Francis Murithi Rutere (Suing as administrator of the estate of M'Rutere M'Munyage alias Rutere Munyungi); Defendant: Julius Mutwiri Njuki; Defendant: Phianeas Mutwiri
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 61 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Adjournment and Directions for Hearing
- Outcome
- Adjournment denied; matter to proceed to hearing with directions for defendants to prepare their testimony.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment of Hearing, Case Management, Compliance With Pretrial 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
Francis Murithi Rutere (Suing as administrator of the estate of M'Rutere M'Munyage alias Rutere Munyungi)
Plaintiff
Julius Mutwiri Njuki
Defendant
Phianeas Mutwiri
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Adjournment and Directions for Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants are entitled to an adjournment of the hearing date.
- 2 Whether the defendants have complied with pretrial directions under Order 11.
- 3 Whether the matter should proceed to hearing despite the defendants' request for adjournment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendants had repeatedly failed to comply with pretrial orders under Order 11 and had been granted multiple opportunities to do so. The court determined that the request for adjournment was an attempt to further delay the proceedings without sufficient justification. The court exercised its discretion to disallow the adjournment, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of cases and adherence to the overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the court allowed the defendants time to prepare their testimony, ensuring fairness and compliance with the right to be heard under the Constitution.
Court Disposition
Adjournment denied; matter to proceed to hearing with directions for defendants to prepare their testimony.
Orders
- The application for adjournment by the defendants is disallowed.
- The matter shall proceed to hearing as scheduled.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
HCCC. SUIT NO. 61 OF 2016 FORMERLY NO. 126 B OF 2009
FRANCIS MURITHI RUTERE (Suing as administrator of the estate of
M'RUTERE M'MUNYAGE alias RUTERE MUNYUNGI..................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JULIUS MUTWIRI NJUKI....................................................1ST DEFENDANT
PHIANEAS MUTWIRI...........................................................2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
I find that the Court's record indicate that today's date was taken as a date for hearing. It appears that defence side has not been vigilant in ensuring that the case is concluded. The records indicate that on 13. 05. 16, the Court had noted that defence had taken a whole year to comply with order 11. Since they had not done so they were given a further 30 days to comply, Plaintiff getting the permission to have the matter fixed for hearing at the registry. The registry did not give Plaintiff a date for hearing so on 05. 12. 16 matter was again mentioned in Court Muthama was present h/b for Mbaya for Defendant. Again Defendant prayed for time to comply . They were given 30 days. Plaintiff was again given permission to set the suit down for hearing . Plaintiff took today's date.
Today, Mr. Mbaya appeared before the Court in the morning and he indicated that the matter was not for hearing and that it was coming up for an application to consolidate suits. This Court had however informed Mr. Mbaya that the matter was coming up for hearing of the main suit what is opponent is that Defendant were present when their counsel was addressing the Court . They never informed the Court that the said Counsel, Mr. Mbaya was having differences with them. I find that this is an opportunity to obtain an adjournment. I disallow the same. I direct the matter to proceed to hearing . However the Court will not take defendants testimony today. Defendants will be given an opportunity to prepare for their side of the case. Reference is made to Section 1A (3) and Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act and article 159 and 50 of the Constitution.
Delivered in open Court at Meru this 20th day of February, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Mungai /Kananu
Carpeters Mbabu for the Plaintiff
Francis Murithi Rutere -Defendant
L.N. MBUGUA
JUDGE