[2021] KEELC 4698 (KLR)
The court found that while the applicant attributed the delay in filing the defence to the mistake of previous counsel, such a mistake does not automatically entitle a party to extension of time, as the litigant is responsible for the conduct of their case and has recourse against their advocate. However, guided by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 4698 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Margaret Njoki Kamau; Defendant: Reuben Ndivo Mwangi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Muranga
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 49 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Defence Out of Time
- Outcome
- Application allowed with conditions.
- Judges
- BC Koech
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Filing of Defence, Mistake of Counsel, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Margaret Njoki Kamau
Plaintiff
Reuben Ndivo Mwangi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Defence Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is deserving of extension of time to file a statement of defence.
- 2 Whether the mistake of counsel is a sufficient ground for extension of time.
- 3 Whether the delay in filing the defence is inordinate and prejudicial to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the applicant attributed the delay in filing the defence to the mistake of previous counsel, such a mistake does not automatically entitle a party to extension of time, as the litigant is responsible for the conduct of their case and has recourse against their advocate. However, guided by Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution, which emphasizes substantive justice, the court considered the interests of justice and the prejudice to the respondent. The delay was found to be inordinate and unexplained, but the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for extension of time, subject to strict conditions including the prompt filing and service of defence...
Court Disposition
Application allowed with conditions.
Orders
- The applicant shall file and serve the statement of defence, witness statements, and list of documents within 7 days from the date of the ruling.
- The applicant shall pay the respondent throw away costs in the sum of Kshs 20,000 within 7 days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MURANG’A
ELC NO. 49 OF 2018
MARGARET NJOKI KAMAU....................................................PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VS
REUBEN NDIVO MWANGI.........................................................DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. The Applicant moved the Court vide an application under ORDER 51 Rule 1 of the CPR and all other enabling provisions seeking the following orders;
a. The Court be pleased to grant leave to file defence out of time.
b. The annexed statement of defense be deemed as properly filed as per record
c. Costs of the application be provided for.
2. The application is based on grounds annexed thereto and the supporting affidavit of the Applicant where he depones that on the 24/6/19 the Court granted the Applicant leave to file defence within 7 days. That the Advocate on record failed to file the said defence within 7 days. That the failure to file the defence within time was a mistake of the previous advocate on record which mistake should not be visited on him. That the current advocate took over the matter on the 9/10/2020. That the failure was not intentional on the part of the Applicant and that the defense raises triable issues and urged the Court to grant the application.
3. The application is opposed. That the Defendant is not serious with the prosecution of the case and that explains why 3 months down the road he is yet to comply with the orders of the Court and file the statement of defence in accordance with the leave granted on the 9/10/2020. That the application is frivolous as leave was already granted and perhaps the right application was to extend time under order 50 rule 6.
4. That no reason has been given to warrant extension of time.
5. The issue is whether the Applicant is deserving of the orders of extension of time to facilitate filing of statement of defence.
6. Order 50 rule 6 provides that where a specific time is fixed for doing an act or taking any proceedings the Court has powers to enlarge such time on terms notwithstanding that the application is brought after the time prescribed has lapsed. The Courts power to enlarge time is unfettered. The discretion must however be exercised judiciously and not capriciously
7. It has been argued by litigants that mistake of counsel should not be visited to them. I am of the contrary view in that the case belongs to the litigant who enjoys a professional and contractual relationship with his counsel who is for all purposes his agent. Any mistake by agent entitles the litigant to a remedy and recourse in law.
8. That said I will be guided by art 159 (2)(b) of the constitution to tend to the substantive justice of the case. The delay in this case has not been explained. The delay is inordinate even if it attributed to the Applicant’s counsel. It is not in dispute that such delay has prejudiced the Respondent. I will take this inconsideration of the orders that I shall give in the end.
9. I allow the application on conditions;
a. That the Applicant shall file and serve the statement of defence, witness statements and list of documents within 7 days from the date hereof.
b. The Applicant shall pay to the Respondent throw away costs in the sum of Kshs 20,000/- payable within 7 days from the date hereof.
c. Thereafter the parties to expeditiously fix the matter for pretrial under Order 11 of the CPR.
d. The cost of the application shall be in favour of the Respondent
10. It is so ordered
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT MURANG’A THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
J.G. KEMEI
JUDGE
Delivered in open Court in the presence of:
Plaintiff: Macharia HB Mrs Kimani
Defendant:Omulara HB Mbiyu
Kuiyaki: Court Assistant