[2024] KEELC 13599 (KLR)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2024] KEELC 13599 (KLR)
Parties: Plaintiff: Phoebe Mueni Ithau; Plaintiff: Nara Holdings Ltd; Plaintiff: Molly Kiragu (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Samuel Karagu Muchiki); Plaintiff: Mwangi Stephen Mureithi; Defendant: Nandlal And Company Limited; Defendant: Nairobi City County; Defendant: National Land Commission; Defendant: The Hon Attorney General; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar; Interested Party: Action Tam of South C Ward Association; Interested Party: Kenya Revenue Authority
Court: Environment and Land Court
Court Station: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction: Kenya
Case Number: Environment & Land Case 147 of 2017
Procedural Posture: Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Suit Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Outcome: Application for reinstatement allowed with costs to the 1st defendant.
Judges: LN Mbugua
Legal Topics: Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Substitution of Parties, Sufficient Cause, Review of Orders
Source Language: en

Civil Procedure Land and Property Reinstatement of Suit Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Substitution of Parties Sufficient Cause Review of Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Phoebe Mueni Ithau

Plaintiff

Nara Holdings Ltd

Plaintiff

Molly Kiragu (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Samuel Karagu Muchiki)

Plaintiff

Mwangi Stephen Mureithi

Plaintiff

Nandlal And Company Limited

Defendant

Nairobi City County

Defendant

National Land Commission

Defendant

The Hon Attorney General

Defendant

Chief Land Registrar

Defendant

Action Tam of South C Ward Association

Interested Party

Kenya Revenue Authority

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Suit Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

1 Whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant reinstatement of the suit dismissed for want of prosecution.
2 Whether the pending application for substitution of a deceased plaintiff constitutes sufficient reason for reinstatement.
3 Whether the applicants or their advocates were duly diligent in prosecuting the matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the existence of a pending application for substitution of the deceased 1st plaintiff at the time of dismissal constituted sufficient cause to review and set aside the dismissal order. The applicants demonstrated a bona fide intention to prosecute the matter, and the interests of substantive justice required that the suit be reinstated. The application for reinstatement was therefore allowed, though costs were awarded to the 1st defendant.

Court Disposition

Application for reinstatement allowed with costs to the 1st defendant.

Orders

The suit is reinstated.
Costs of the application are awarded to the 1st defendant.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

38 paragraphs

Ithau & 3 others v Nandlal and Company Limited & 4 others; Action Tam of South C Ward Association & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 147 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 13599 (KLR) (3 December 2024) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 13599 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Environment & Land Case 147 of 2017

LN Mbugua, J

December 3, 2024

Between

Phoebe Mueni Ithau

1st Plaintiff

Nara Holdings Ltd

2nd Plaintiff

Molly Kiragu (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Samuel Karagu Muchiki)

3rd Plaintiff

Mwangi Stephen Mureithi

4th Plaintiff

and

Nandlal And Company Limited

1st Defendant

Nairobi City County

2nd Defendant

National Land Commission

3rd Defendant

The Hon Attorney General

4th Defendant

Chief Land Registrar

5th Defendant

and

Action Tam of South C Ward Association

Interested Party

Kenya Revenue Authority

Interested Party

Ruling

1. Before me is the 2nd and 4th Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion Application dated 8. 12. 2023 seeking orders for the reinstatement of the suit which was dismissed on 16. 11. 2023 for want of prosecution. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit of Muyuka Mercy, the advocate applicants. She contends that when the matter came up for hearing on 16. 11. 2023, she indicated that she was not ready to proceed with the hearing as there was a pending application by the 1st plaintiff dated 23. 10. 2023 for substitution of the 1st plaintiff who was deceased. She contends that they are keen on prosecuting this matter.

2. In opposition thereof, the 1st defendant filed a Replying Affidavit dated 7. 5.2024 sworn by its director, one Vinay Sanghrajka where he avers that the advocates for the applicants had appeared before the court on 9. 10. 2023 when they withdrew their application to cease acting averring that they were in touch with their clients. Thus the advocate for the applicants had sufficient time to appraise their clients regarding the hearing date of 16. 11. 2023. It is further argued that the application is frivolous and vexatious and should therefore be dismissed.

3. I have considered all the arguments raised herein. The overriding objective of our constitutional and statutory framework on civil procedure is to achieve substantive justice to the litigants, See Gold Lida Limited vs NIC Bank Ltd & 2 other [2018] eKLR. In the case of Mwangi S. Kimenyi vs Attorney General and Another [2014] eKLR the court stated that;“The decision whether a suit should be re-instated for trial is a matter of justice and it depends on the facts of the case.”

4. Considering that one of the plaintiffs (the first one) was deceased, and there was a pending application for his substitution as at the time the suit was dismissed, then I find that the applicants have proffered sufficient cause to warrant a review of the orders of 16. 11. 2023 for their case to be reinstated. Thus the application dated 8. 12. 2023 is hereby allowed but with costs to the 1st defendant.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 3th DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:Muyuka for PlaintiffVanessa holding brief for Elijah for 1st DefendantCourt Assistant: Vena

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.