[2019] KEELC 3353 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a plausible explanation for non-compliance with the court's clear orders regarding the filing and service of submissions within the stipulated period. The submissions relied upon by the applicant were not those required by the court's order of 26.9.2018, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 3353 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jackson Kaibunga M’Ikirera; Respondent: Mike Kailemia Ntong’ondu; Respondent: Francis Kunyanga Ntong’ondu; Respondent: Mugambi M’Thiritu Manyara
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 44 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Non Compliance
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to respondent; file marked as closed and to be archived
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Suit, Non Compliance With Court Orders, Filing of Submissions
- 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
Jackson Kaibunga M’Ikirera
Applicant
Mike Kailemia Ntong’ondu
Respondent
Francis Kunyanga Ntong’ondu
Respondent
Mugambi M’Thiritu Manyara
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Non Compliance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds for reinstatement of the dismissed application.
- 2 Whether the applicant complied with the court's orders regarding filing and serving submissions within the stipulated period.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a plausible explanation for non-compliance with the court's clear orders regarding the filing and service of submissions within the stipulated period. The submissions relied upon by the applicant were not those required by the court's order of 26.9.2018, and the applicant did not demonstrate seriousness or diligence in prosecuting the matter. The court concluded that there was no merit in the application for reinstatement, and that repeated non-compliance with court orders justified dismissal of the application with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to respondent; file marked as closed and to be archived
Orders
- The application dated 22.10.2018 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
- This file is marked as closed and is to be taken to archives.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
ELC MISC. APPLICATION NO. 44 OF 2014
JACKSON KAIBUNGA M’IKIRERA........................APPLICANT
VERSUS
MIKE KAILEMIA NTONG’ONDU ................1ST RESPONDENT
FRANCIS KUNYANGA NTONG’ONDU ......2ND RESPONDENT
MUGAMBI M’THIRITU MANYARA ...........3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Vide an application dated 22. 10. 2018, applicant is seeking orders of reinstatement of the application dated 8. 9.2014 which was dismissed on 15. 10. 2018.
2. The grounds in support of the application are that the dismissal was based on misinformation and that the non-attendance of the applicant’s advocate in court when the matter came up in court for mention was inadvertent.
3. Applicant’s counsel has sworn a supporting affidavit where she avers that the present matter was called out when she had stepped out to appear before hon. Justice Kemei. She further avers that applicant had duly filed and served the submissions in respect of the application of 2014.
4. The application is opposed vide the replying affidavit of counsel for respondents filed on 12. 11. 2018, whereby it is averred that the submissions filed and served on 21. 11. 2017 were not the ones which were to be filed and served within 14 days as ordered on 26. 9.2018.
5. I have weighed all the arguments raised herein and I find that applicant’s side is not serious about this matter.
6. This suit was dismissed on 7. 12. 2017 as applicant had not complied with court’s orders of 23. 10. 2017. However vide an application dated 10. 3.2018, applicant successfully obtained orders of reinstatement of the suit vide the court’s ruling of 26. 9.2018. However, there was a rider in that ruling; that “the suit is reinstated on condition that the submissions of the applicant are availed (filed and served) within 14 days from date of delivery of the ruling”.
7. The applicant has not given any plausible explanation as to how submissions of 21. 11. 2017 came to be. How were directions given for such submissions to be filed? The applicant appears to thrive in confusion.
8. This miscellaneous file was dismissed on 15. 10. 2018 a second time for non-compliance with the court’s orders of 26. 9.2018 where submissions were to be filed as from 26. 9.2018 to 10. 10. 2018!
9. I therefore find that the present application is not merited. I dismiss the same with costs to respondent.
10. This file is marked as closed and is to be taken to archives.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 22ND MAY, 2019 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
Rimita & Kurauka for applicant
M.G Kaume holding brief for C.P Mbaabu for respondent
1st and 3rd respondent
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE