[2018] KEELC 2429 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had been indolent and guilty of laches, having failed to prosecute the suit for a prolonged period of nearly ten years. The reasons advanced for the delay, including the alleged disappearance of the court file and lack of notice of dismissal, were not accepted as sufficient...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2429 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Amukoble Namale; Respondent: Evans Kangu Wasumwa
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 10 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- NA Matheka
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Delay and Laches, Service of Court Notices
- 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
John Amukoble Namale
Applicant
Evans Kangu Wasumwa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was properly served with the notice of dismissal for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit was excusable or justified.
- 3 Whether the suit should be reinstated and the dismissal order set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had been indolent and guilty of laches, having failed to prosecute the suit for a prolonged period of nearly ten years. The reasons advanced for the delay, including the alleged disappearance of the court file and lack of notice of dismissal, were not accepted as sufficient justification. The court applied the principle that it is the plaintiff's duty to progress their case and that reinstatement is only warranted where the delay is excusable and justice can still be served. Given the inordinate and unexplained delay, the application to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the suit was found to lack merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the suit is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAKAMEGA
ELC MISC APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2017
JOHN AMUKOBLE NAMALE......................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
EVANS KANGU WASUMWA.................................DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
The application is dated 10th May 2017 and is brought under sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and order 12 rule 7 and order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking the following orders;
1. That the application be and is hereby certified urgent, service thereof being dispensed with.
2. That the order of this honourable court given on the 7/7/2016 dismissing suit number 80 of 2007 for want of prosecution be and is hereby set aside.
3. That the said suit be and is hereby reinstated and allowed to proceed to hearing of application dated 28/4/2015 filed in court on 12/5/2015.
4. That the said suit file be kept under lock and key to avoid any further disappearance.
5. That a hearing date be given on priority basis to ensure expeditious disposal of the suit.
6. That the costs of this application be in the cause.
It is based on the following grounds that the notice of dismissal dated 24th June, 2016 was not sent to them and/or received by them. That the prior to the dismissal notice the suit file had disappeared since 12th May, 2015. They had on their part made several attempts to proceed with the matter and are not responsible for the delay. That the applicant will be prejudiced unless the orders made are set aside for it to be heard on merit. That the applicant is desirous of contesting this suit. That it is only fair, just and in the interest of justice that the orders sought be granted.
The defendant/respondent opposed the plaintiff’s/applicant’s application stating that plaintiff/applicant has since the filing of this suit on 29th October 2007 failed to move the court to have this suit heard and determined until it was dismissed on the 7th July 2015, a period of over 10 years. That the applicant is guilty of latches.
This court has considered the application and the submissions herein. The Application is based on the grounds that, the notice of dismissal dated 24th June, 2016 was not sent to them and/or received by them. That the prior to the dismissal notice the suit file had disappeared since 12th May, 2015. They had on their part made several attempts to proceed with the matter and are not responsible for the delay. I have perused that court file and find that, the court dismissed the said suit on the 7th July, 2015 for want of prosecution. This application was filed on the 10th may 2017, a period of almost two years later. This is a very old matter and the plaintiff has been indolent and is guilty of laches. I do not accept his reasons for wanting the suit reinstated.
In the case of Utalii Transport Company Ltd & 3 Others v NIC Bank & Another (2014) eKLR, the court held that it is the primary duty of the plaintiffs to take steps to progress their case since they are the ones who dragged the defendant to court. The decision on whether the suit should be reinstated for trial is a matter of justice and it depends on the facts of the case. In Ivita v Kyumbu (1984) KLR 441, Chesoni J as he then was, stated that the test is whether the delay is prolonged and inexcusable and if justice will be done despite the delay. Justice is justice for both the plaintiff and the defendant. I find this application has no merit and I dismiss it with costs.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA IN OPEN COURT THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018.
N.A. MATHEKA
JUDGE