[2019] KEELC 2126 (KLR)
The court found that the failure to file the amended plaint within the stipulated period was an excusable mistake by the applicants' counsel and not intended to delay or subvert the course of justice. There was no evidence of inordinate delay or prejudice to the respondent. The court exercised its discretion to set...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 2126 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Franscisca Wanza Nthenge; Applicant: Tabitha Syombua Maingi; Respondent: Mwana Wikio Cooperative Society Ltd
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Muranga
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 87 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Application to Set Aside Abatement and Reinstate Suit
- Outcome
- Application allowed; suit reinstated.
- Judges
- BC Koech
- Legal Topics
- Abatement of Suit, Amendment of Pleadings, Substitution of Parties, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Franscisca Wanza Nthenge
Applicant
Tabitha Syombua Maingi
Applicant
Mwana Wikio Cooperative Society Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Application to Set Aside Abatement and Reinstate Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after abatement for failure to file an amended plaint within the stipulated period.
- 2 Whether the mistake of counsel in failing to amend the plaint is excusable and should not be visited upon the litigants.
- 3 Whether the delay in amending the plaint prejudiced the respondent or amounted to an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the failure to file the amended plaint within the stipulated period was an excusable mistake by the applicants' counsel and not intended to delay or subvert the course of justice. There was no evidence of inordinate delay or prejudice to the respondent. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the abatement and reinstate the suit, emphasizing the overriding objective to do substantive justice and allow the matter to be heard on its merits.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; suit reinstated.
Orders
- Plaintiff to file an amended plaint within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
- Defendant granted 14 days to file any response to the amended plaint, if necessary.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT MURANG’A
E.L.C NO. 87 OF 2017
FRANSCISCA WANZA NTHENGE.................................1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
TABITHA SYOMBUA MAINGI.......................................2ND PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VS
MWANA WIKIO COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.....DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Notice of Motion as filed seeks orders to set aside orders made on 31/10/18 and reinstate the suit for hearing and determination. It is grounded on the following provisions of the law; Art 159 and section 1A and 2A of the Civil Procedure Act. That the suit abated on 31/10/18 for failure to file an amended plaint within 14 days and that the mistake of counsel ought not be visited on the Plaintiff.
2. The application is supported by the supporting affidavit of counsel for the Applicant where he deponed that the suit was filed on 2/11/16. That Phylis Katoti Maingi passed away on 24/8/17 and was substituted by Francisca Wanza Nthenge and Tabitha Syombua Maingi. On the 13/10/18 the suit was decreed to have abated as no amendment of the plaint was done within 14 days. That the failure to amend was an oversight by the counsel of the Applicant and urged the Court not to visit this infraction on the litigants.
3. The application was opposed by the Respondent who faulted the Applicants for failure to amend the plaint within the period of 14 days’ despite being granted leave to do so. That the delay of 5 months has not been explained by the Applicants and urged the Court not to reinstate the matter as the Respondent will suffer prejudice in costs. That the Applicant has even failed to attach a copy of the draft amended plaint for the perusal of the Court.
4. Parties have each filed written submissions which I have read and considered in the ruling.
5. I have reviewed the proceedings in the case and note that upon the death of Phylis Katoti Maingi, the intended substitutes moved the Court vide a Notice of Motion dated the 3/4/18. The same being unopposed, was allowed by orders of the Court on the 17/5/18. Upon substitution, the Applicants had 14 days then to file an amended plaint. This was not filed until the Court raised the matter with the parties on the 27/11/18.
6. The provisions of order 24 as applied together with Section 3A ,1B and 1C gives the Court unfettered discretion which must be exercised judiciously and within the law. The Court acts to prevent an injustice, hardship or inadvertence or excusable mistake on the one hand. On the other hand it must also be keen not to assist a party who is out to abuse its process or overreach or defeat the overriding objectives of the Court. In this case, when the application was allowed, the parties did not go to slumber but actively worked towards having the matter set down for hearing.
7. The supporting affidavit narrates that there was an error and inadvertence when counsel failed to amend the pleadings. That the error was excusable given the fact that the parties proceeded without noticing the omission until the hearing date when the Court raised the anomaly.
8. The suit had not abated given that as at the time of filing suit there had been evidence of substitution (by consent) and the remaining part of amendment may be done anytime before judgment. There is no evidence that the error was such that it was intended to delay or subvert the cause of justice. The Respondent has not showed how he stands to be prejudiced if the application is granted so that the matter may be heard on its merits. There is no evidence of inordinate delay and /or such delay that would override the need for fair trial, a supreme right to be heard and matter determined before this Court and further obligation of the Court to uphold justice where there is good ground.
9. I exercise my discretion to allow the application.
10. The Plaintiff is directed to file an amended plaint within 14 days from the date herein. The Defendant shall have corresponding leave of 14 days to file any response thereto, if need be. Thereafter parties to set the matter for hearing.
Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT MURANG’A THIS 31st DAY OF JULY 2019.
J G KEMEI
JUDGE
Delivered in open Court in the presence of;
Plaintiffs/Applicants: 1 – Present in person
Advocate is Absent
2 - Present in person
Ms Maina HB for Maranga for the Defendant/Respondent
Irene and Njeri, Court Assistants