[2017] KEELC 2638 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 2638 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay in prosecuting the suit. The only reason advanced was the illness and subsequent death of the plaintiff's wife, but the plaintiff did not specify when the illness began or how it prevented him from prosecuting the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 2638 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: James Macharia Mwangi; Defendant: Sabina Muthoni Mwangi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 692 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Suit
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Judicial Discretion, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Reinstatement of Suit Judicial Discretion Delay in Prosecution

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Macharia Mwangi

Plaintiff

Sabina Muthoni Mwangi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Suit

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has provided sufficient reason for the delay in prosecuting the suit to warrant reinstatement.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to reinstate a suit dismissed for want of prosecution after a prolonged period of inactivity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay in prosecuting the suit. The only reason advanced was the illness and subsequent death of the plaintiff's wife, but the plaintiff did not specify when the illness began or how it prevented him from prosecuting the suit for over 15 years, especially considering he was represented by an advocate. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not explain his inaction for the nine years following his wife's death before the suit was dismissed. The court held that reinstating a suit nine years after dismissal, following such an extended period of inactivity, would not be a judicious exercise of discretion....

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 15th April 2015 is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.