[2009] KEHC 1647 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's reason for delay—namely, the indolence of its previous management committee in failing to give timely instructions to its advocates—did not meet the threshold of 'sufficient reason' required under sections 22 and 28(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The court emphasized that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1647 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kagumo College Workers Sacco; Respondent: Joseph Mureithi Mwaniki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 174 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time to File Suit Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Limitation of Actions, Discretion of Court
- 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
Kagumo College Workers Sacco
Applicant
Joseph Mureithi Mwaniki
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time to File Suit Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the enlargement of time to file suit out of time under the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the indolence of the applicant's previous management constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's reason for delay—namely, the indolence of its previous management committee in failing to give timely instructions to its advocates—did not meet the threshold of 'sufficient reason' required under sections 22 and 28(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The court emphasized that the law only allows extension of time in cases of disability, death, or other sufficient cause, and that mere negligence or inaction by a party's management does not qualify. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant and dismissed the application for enlargement of time.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The motion dated 15th January, 2009 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION 174 OF 2009
KAGUMO COLLEGE WORKERS SACCO……APPLICANT
Versus
JOSEPH MUREITHI MWANIKI………...……RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
Pursuant to the provisions of section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Kagumo college workers Sacco, the applicant herein took out a notice of motion in which it prayed for the enlargement of time to file suit out of time. The motion is supported by the affidavit of S.W. Kahoi sworn on 1st January, 2009.
The application is exparte by dint of section 28 (1) of the Limitation of Actions Act. It is the submission of the applicant that it instructed the firm of M/s Mathenge & Muchemi Advocates to file suit to recover a sum of Ksh.55,782/6 from Joseph Mureithi Mwaniki, the respondent herein, sometimes in the year 2001. It is said that on drawing the court documents and requesting for filing fees, the applicant’s previous management did not respond to the request until the time to file suit lapsed. It is said that when the applicant’s new management took up office, it discovered that the respondent still owed the applicant the aforesaid sum. The applicant avers that it is desirous to recover the debt hence the need to be given leave to file an action out of time. It is obvious from the material placed before this court that the applicant advanced to the respondent a sum of Ksh.30,411/90 in the year 1995. The applicant demanded payment of the aforesaid sum on 14. 3.2001. The respondent acknowledged receipt of the demand letter by his letter dated 17. 05. 2001. He admitted owing the aforesaid sum to the applicant. He even proposed to liquidate the debt by monthly installment. He did not fulfill his promise. It is now about 8 years since the respondent acknowledged the debt. The applicant has blamed the previous management committee for failing to file suit within time. Under sections 22 and 28 (1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, the court can only extend time to file an action out of time if the evidence adduced shows that the applicant suffered from serious disability or dies or for any sufficient reason. The reason advanced by the applicant herein indicates that the applicant’s previous management committee was indolent. It did not give the advocate sufficient instructions to institute recovery proceedings against the respondent. In the circumstances this court will not exercise its discretion in favour of an indolent party who condoned delay. The applicant should suffer for the indolent conduct of its management committee. Let the respondent enjoy the rights he has acquired under the law. In brief, the reasons given by the applicant do not meet the thresthold prescribed by the law. For the above reasons the motion dated 15th January, 2009 is ordered dismissed with no order as to costs.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 13th day of October 2009.
J.K. SERGON
JUDGE