[2018] KEELC 1863 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 1863 (KLR)

The court found that although the 2nd Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of efforts to prosecute the suit or follow up on the reserved ruling, the court registry also failed to bring up the file for preparation and delivery of the ruling after the hearing on 5th May 2015. This mutual lapse justified...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 1863 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Kibera Mbugua; Plaintiff: Kamau Mbugua; Defendant: Hannah Mumbi Mbugua; Defendant: Gordon Nguono Olando
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 599 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application allowed; suit reinstated; no order as to costs
Judges
TM Olando
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Fraudulent Land Transfer, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Reinstatement of Suit Fraudulent Land Transfer Injunctive Relief

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Kibera Mbugua

Plaintiff

Kamau Mbugua

Plaintiff

Hannah Mumbi Mbugua

Defendant

Gordon Nguono Olando

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Plaintiff has shown reasonable cause for not prosecuting the suit for over one year leading to dismissal for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the court had set the ruling in respect of the notice of motion dated 15th August 2014 to be delivered on notice.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the 2nd Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of efforts to prosecute the suit or follow up on the reserved ruling, the court registry also failed to bring up the file for preparation and delivery of the ruling after the hearing on 5th May 2015. This mutual lapse justified setting aside the dismissal order. The court held that the absence of a record of the ruling being delivered and the registry's failure to facilitate the process constituted sufficient reason to reinstate the suit. The application was allowed, the dismissal order set aside, and the suit reinstated, with each party bearing their own costs for the application.

Court Disposition

application allowed; suit reinstated; no order as to costs

Orders

  • The dismissal order of 21st March 2017 is hereby set aside and the suit reinstated.
  • The court will prepare and deliver the pending ruling on the notice of motion dated 15th August 2014.