[2019] KEELC 2323 (KLR)
The court found that the application to set aside the dismissal was filed after an inordinate delay, with the suit having been dismissed on 9th November 2017 and the application only being filed on 3rd July 2019. The reasons advanced for non-attendance and delay, namely illness and loss of contact with advocates,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 2323 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Kulitu Wakhu; Respondent: John Ikhuta Malalu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 121 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- NA Matheka
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Inordinate Delay, Land 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
John Kulitu Wakhu
Applicant
John Ikhuta Malalu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the application to set aside the dismissal is excusable.
- 3 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reasons for non-attendance and delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application to set aside the dismissal was filed after an inordinate delay, with the suit having been dismissed on 9th November 2017 and the application only being filed on 3rd July 2019. The reasons advanced for non-attendance and delay, namely illness and loss of contact with advocates, were deemed unacceptable. The court emphasized that it is the plaintiff's duty to prosecute their case and that justice must be balanced for both parties. Citing relevant case law, the court concluded that the delay was inexcusable and that the application lacked merit, warranting dismissal with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application to set aside or review the dismissal order is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAKAMEGA
ELC CASE NO. 121 OF 2014
JOHN KULITU WAKHU...............PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
JOHN IKHUTA MALALU.....DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
The application is dated 21ST February 2019 and is brought under Section 3a of the Civil Procedure seeking the following orders;
1. That the orders made herein dismissing this suit be set aside or be reviewed
2. That costs of this application be in the cause.
It is grounded on the annexed affidavit of John Kulitu Wakhu the applicant and on the grounds that, the applicant’s suit was dismissed for want of prosecution and for his non-attendance. The applicant has been desirous to prosecute this matter on merit. That due to illness he lost contact with his advocates. That the applicant has a good and prima facie case as against the defendant.
The respondent submitted that, the suit herein was dismissed for want of prosecution on the 9th November 2017. That the plaintiff herein is his neighbour and has been seeing him around. That the plaintiff has been indolent for two years. That the application lacks merit and should be dismissed with costs.
This court has considered the application and the submissions therein. I have perused the court file and find that this suit was dismissed on the 9th November 2017. It is on the 3rd July 2019 that the present application was filed. This case was filed way back in 2014. And the land court has been sitting continuously from 2017. I find that there is inordinate delay in filing this application. Reasons advance for non attendance are not acceptable.
In the case of Utalii Transport Company Ltd & 3 Others vs 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 24TH JULY 2019.
N.A. MATHEKA
JUDGE