[2022] KEELC 1723 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had continued to service the loan and provided evidence of ongoing payments, which indicated that the suit raised triable issues, including whether the parties had renegotiated the loan repayment terms. The court held that striking out the suit would be a draconian measure...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 1723 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Gerald Muhemberi Kavinguha; Defendant: Family Bank of Kenya Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 184 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application to strike out the suit for want of prosecution dismissed.
- Judges
- JE Gicheru
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Loan Repayment Disputes, Right to Fair Hearing
- 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
Gerald Muhemberi Kavinguha
Plaintiff
Family Bank of Kenya Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Should the suit be dismissed for want of prosecution?
- 2 Does the ongoing loan repayment and conduct of the parties justify the continuation of the suit?
- 3 Would striking out the suit violate the plaintiff's right to a fair hearing?
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had continued to service the loan and provided evidence of ongoing payments, which indicated that the suit raised triable issues, including whether the parties had renegotiated the loan repayment terms. The court held that striking out the suit would be a draconian measure resulting in derogation of the plaintiff's right to a fair hearing as enshrined in Article 50(1) of the Constitution. The court therefore declined to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and directed that the matter proceed to hearing on its merits.
Court Disposition
Application to strike out the suit for want of prosecution dismissed.
Orders
- The application to strike out the suit is dismissed.
- The main suit to be set down for hearing on its merits.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KAJIADO
ELC CASE NO. 184 OF 2018
GERAL MUHEMBERI KAVINGUHA..........................................PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
-VERSUS-
FAMILY BANK OF KENYA LIMITED.........................................DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
This ruling is on the Notice of Motion dated 8/2/2021.
The said application which is under Order 17 Rule 2(3)andOrder 51of theCivil Procedure Rules, Section 3Aof theCivil Procedure Actand all other enabling provisions of the law seeks three orders against the Plaintiff;
(a) Striking out the Plaintiff’s suit for want of prosecution
(b) Costs of the suit
(c) Costs of the application
The grounds for seeking the above orders are that the Plaintiff has inordinately delayed the prosecution of the suit, that it has been over a year since he took any action in the matter, that the delay is unmerited and prejudicial to the Defendant, that the onus is on the Plaintiff to prosecute his case expeditiously, that the Plaintiff has lost interest in the suit, that this Court should dismiss the suit and it is in the interest of justice that the above orders be granted.
The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Thomas Kairu Ng’ang’a an advocate in the firm of the Defendant’s Counsel. In the affidavit, he deposes how the Plaintiff instituted the suit, obtained interlocutory orders failed to service the loan with the Defendant and also failed to prosecute the case.
The application is opposed by the Respondent Gerald Muhemberi Kavinguha who has sworn two affidavits dated 21st September, 2021 and 26th November, 2021. The gist of the two affidavits is that the Defendant filed an application dated 7/11/2016 and the same has not been prosecuted to date.
Secondly, the Plaintiff says that he has been servicing the loan by paying a monthly instalment of Kshs. 9, 850/- as agreed between the parties. Annexed to the affidavit dated 26/11/2021 is a copy of loan statement issued by the Defendant showing that the Plaintiff has been repaying the loan since 7/7/2020 to November, 2021.
For the first six months, the repayment rate was Kshs. 19, 880/= per month but from January 2021, it dropped to Kshs. 9, 880/= per month.
I have carefully considered the application in its entirety including the affidavits, the grounds and the annexures.
I find that there is only one issue to be decided namely, should the suit be dismissed for want of prosecution?
I find that the suit be not dismissed. Instead it should be heard on merit. Striking out pleadings is a draconian move which would result in derogation of the right to a fair hearing enshrined in Article 50(1)of theConstitution.
The suit, it seems to me, raises triable issues such as, did the parties re-negotiate the loan repayment? Why is the Defendant accepting payment from the Plaintiff if there is no consent?
I find that it is not necessary to hear the application to set aside the order of 14th October, 2016. Instead, I direct that the main suit be set down for hearing.
In the meantime, the parties to fully disclose and comply with order 11 Civil Procedure Rules.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAJIADO THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022.
M.N. GICHERU
JUDGE