[2019] KEELC 874 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to provide any plausible or sufficient reason for the prolonged delay in prosecuting the suit since the amendment of the Plaint in 2011. The Plaintiff did not take any steps to fix the matter for hearing or to follow up on the status of the suit, nor did she demonstrate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 874 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lydia Mwikali Shadrack; Defendant: Boniface Mwangangi Matheka
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 322 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Order 17 Rule 2, Delay in Prosecution, Security for Costs
- 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
Lydia Mwikali Shadrack
Plaintiff
Boniface Mwangangi Matheka
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff has provided sufficient reason to set aside the dismissal order for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the suit should be reinstated for hearing and determination.
- 3 Whether the Plaintiff's delay in prosecuting the suit is excusable under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to provide any plausible or sufficient reason for the prolonged delay in prosecuting the suit since the amendment of the Plaint in 2011. The Plaintiff did not take any steps to fix the matter for hearing or to follow up on the status of the suit, nor did she demonstrate diligence or reasonable conduct expected of a litigant. The court emphasized that under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, it is mandatory for the court to dismiss suits not set down for hearing for over a year, and the Plaintiff's inaction did not justify setting aside the dismissal. Consequently, the application to reinstate the suit was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Application dated 13th December, 2018 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 322 OF 2009
LYDIA MWIKALI SHADRACK....................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BONIFACE MWANGANGI MATHEKA...................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In the Notice of Motion dated 13th December, 2018, the Plaintiff is seeking for the following orders:
a. The dismissal order herein in dated 29th September, 2017 be set aside and the suit herein be reinstated for hearing and determination.
b. That there be stay of execution of this court’s decree dated 6th August, 2018 pending hearing inter-parte of this Application.
c. That cost of this Application be provided for.
2. The Application is supported by the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in which she has deponed that it is only after she was served with a Warrant of Attachment that she became aware of the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution; that she was never notified when the case was coming up for dismissal of the suit and that she is willing to deposit money as a security for the Defendant’s costs.
3. In reply, the Defendant’s advocate deponed that since the institution of the suit, the Plaintiff has never exhibited any desire to prosecute the suit; that subsequent to the dismissal of the suit, several court processes were undertaken and that the Defendant’s Bill of Costs has been taxed.
4. The Defendant’s advocate finally deponed that the Applicant is an indolent litigant who is underserving of the prayers sought in her Application and that the firm of King’oo Wanjau & Company Advocates are not properly on record.
5. In her submissions, the Plaintiff’s advocate submitted that the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant can only be resolved by the court; that with the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution, the dispute remains unresolved and that it should be noted that the High Court had stopped hearing land cases thus the delay in the hearing of this suit. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff regrets the omission on the part of his advocates and that the Plaintiff is willing to deposit security for costs in court.
6. In his submissions, the Defendant’s advocate submitted that the Plaintiff never bothered to pursue her case; that it is the Defendant who took the initiative of fixing the matter for mention on several occasions and that the Applicant should not be heard groaning under the weight of her self-inflicted distress.
7. The record shows that after this suit was filed on 27th October, 2009, the matter was fixed for the hearing of a Preliminary Objection by the Defendant’s advocate on 11th October, 2011. The matter did not proceed for the hearing of the Preliminary Objection. When the matter came up on 8th December, 2011, the Application dated 24th February, 2011 for the amendment of the Plaint was allowed.
8. From the time the Amended Plaint was filed by the Plaintiff in the year 2011, the Plaintiff never fixed the matter for hearing. Indeed, it is the Defendant’s advocate who fixed the mention dates of 18th April, 2013 and 3rd March, 2014. The last time that this matter was in court was on 15th July, 2015 when neither the Plaintiff’s nor the Defendant’s advocates were in court.
9. On 29th September, 2017, and after the Plaintiff’s advocate had been served with the Notice to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution, the court dismissed the suit.
10. The Plaintiff has not informed the court why she never made a follow up to ascertain the position of her suit since the year 2011 when the Plaint was amended. Indeed, the Plaintiff, did not bother to personally fix the matter for hearing or get another advocate to prosecute the matter timeously and expeditiously.
11. Considering that the Plaintiff never attempted to fix this matter for hearing since the year 2009 when the suit was filed, and in view of the provisions of Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules which mandates the court to dismiss the suit which is not set down for hearing for a year, I find that the Plaintiff has not given any plausible reason why the orders dismissing the suit for want of prosecution should be set aside.
12. For those reasons, I dismiss the Application dated 13th December, 2018 but with no order as to costs.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE