[2015] KEHC 1388 (KLR)
The court found that although there had been a lengthy period of inactivity in the prosecution of the suit, the plaintiff had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, namely, lack of knowledge that his advocate had left the firm and subsequent steps taken to regularize representation. The court emphasized...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 1388 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jacob Kari Kamoni; Defendant: Emily Cherono
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 116 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Advocate Client Relationship, Land Ownership Disputes
- 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
Jacob Kari Kamoni
Plaintiff
Emily Cherono
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inactivity exceeding one year.
- 2 Whether the reasons advanced by the plaintiff for the delay are sufficient to spare the suit from dismissal.
- 3 Whether the interests of justice require the dispute to be determined on its merits.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there had been a lengthy period of inactivity in the prosecution of the suit, the plaintiff had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, namely, lack of knowledge that his advocate had left the firm and subsequent steps taken to regularize representation. The court emphasized that litigants must be diligent, but also recognized that this was a land ownership dispute deserving to be heard and determined on its merits. The interests of justice outweighed the delay, and the court exercised its discretion to disallow the application for dismissal, instead directing the parties to file and exchange witness and document lists to facilitate expeditious hearing.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution is disallowed.
- Parties to file and exchange lists of witnesses and documents within 21 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 116 OF 2012
JACOB KARI KAMONI .............................. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EMILY CHERONO................................... DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. The defendant/applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 14/4/2015 seeking to have the suit herein dismissed for want of prosecution. The applicant contends that the plaintiff has not taken any step towards the prosecution of his suit. This case was before court on 17/5/2013 when the court set aside an ex-parte judgment and granted the defendant/applicant leave to file and serve defence within 14 days.
2. The applicant contends that the pendancy of this suit in court is causing her psychological torture and that the plaintiff is not keen to prosecute the same. She therefore seeks that the suit be dismissed with costs.
3. The applicant's application is opposed by the plaintiff/respondent through a replying affidavit filed in court on 29/7/205. The applicant states that he instructed Mr. Gatune Advocate an Associate in the firm of Gacathi & Co. Advocates to file this suit on his behalf. The said Advocate moved from the firm of Gacathi & Co. Advocates to Nairobi where he took up employment at Invesco Insurance Company Ltd. He contends that he was not aware that Mr. Gatune had moved from the firm of Gacathi & Co. Advocates and that he is keen on prosecuting his case.
4. The plaintiff filed this suit on 28/8/2012. Hearing proceeded ex-parte after the defendant who was said to have been served neither entered appearance nor filed defence. A judgment was delivered on 20/3/2013 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant/applicant filed an application seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment and its consequential orders. This application was heard and a ruling delivered on 17/5/2013 setting aside the ex-parte judgment. The defendant was given 14 days within which she was to file and serve defence.
5. The defendant filed defence on 6/6/2013. Since that time this suit has not been fixed for hearing or any step taken towards the prosecution of the same until the present application was filed. There is no doubt that this suit has been pending without prosecution for over one year. Either party was at liberty to apply to court for its dismissal. The provisions under which this application is brought gives the court discretion to consider whether to dismiss or spare the suit depending on the reasons advanced for non prosecution of the same.
6. The plaintiff has stated that he was not aware that his advocate had left the employment of the firm of M/s Gacathi & Co. Advocates. When a hearing notice was served upon the firm of Gacathi & Co. Advocates, Mr. Gacathi appeared in court and explained that the file of the plaintiff had been given to another law firm. He asked for adjournment which adjournment was granted. The plaintiff who had not filed a reply to the present application then went and engaged a lawyer who came and filed a notice of change of Advocate and prepared a replying affidavit which was sworn by the plaintiff/respondent and filed in court on 29/7/2015. Even though the plaintiff's Advocate was not in court during the hearing of this application on 17/9/2015 there was already a replying affidavit on record.
7. I have considered the lengthy of time this matter has remained inactive and the reasons given for non prosecution of this case. It is common knowledge that litigants who engage Advocates tend to think that it is the Advocate to do everything. They forget that it is their case and that they are duty bound to follow it up. This is a land matter involving ownership of a property. I am convinced that this is a matter in which parties ought to be heard and the dispute determined on its merits. This application is therefore disallowed.
8. I notice that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant have filed their list of witnesses and documents. Let parties file and exchange lists of witnesses and documents within the next 21 days after which either party can fix this suit for hearing as soon as the diary for 2016 is available. Costs of this application shall be in the cause.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 5th day of October, 2015.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of Mr. Karani for M/s Kosgei for Applicant.
Court Assistant – Winnie.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
5/10/2015