[2019] KEELC 1633 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to take any steps to progress the suit between 2011 and 2017, showing a lack of diligence and interest in her own case. The court emphasized that it is the litigant's responsibility to follow up on their case, and failure to do so cannot be excused by blaming the advocate....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 1633 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Martha Kilonzo; Respondent: Kamula Mukiti; Respondent: Musyoki Kilonzo; Respondent: Mutua Kilonzo; Respondent: Anna Kilonzo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 226 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / 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, Litigant Diligence, Advocate Negligence
- 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
Martha Kilonzo
Applicant
Kamula Mukiti
Respondent
Musyoki Kilonzo
Respondent
Mutua Kilonzo
Respondent
Anna Kilonzo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should set aside the order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the suit should be reinstated despite the plaintiff's inaction between 2011 and 2017.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to take any steps to progress the suit between 2011 and 2017, showing a lack of diligence and interest in her own case. The court emphasized that it is the litigant's responsibility to follow up on their case, and failure to do so cannot be excused by blaming the advocate. The absence of any explanation for the prolonged inaction led the court to conclude that the plaintiff was indolent. As a result, the court held that the dismissal for want of prosecution was justified and declined to set aside the dismissal or reinstate the suit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 3rd April, 2019 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 226 OF 2008
MARTHA KILONZO.............................................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
KAMULA MUKITI.................................................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
MUSYOKI KILONZO............................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
MUTUA KILONZO................................................3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
ANNA KILONZO....................................................4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. In the Application dated 3rd April, 2019, the Plaintiff is seeking for the following orders:
a.That this court be pleased to set aside the order made on 27th March, 2017 by Hon. Justice C. Mbogo dismissing the suit for want of prosecution.
b.That this suit be reinstated.
c.That the costs of this Application be provided for.
2. The Application is supported by the Affidavit of the Plaintiff who has deponed that this suit was filed by his former advocate in the year 2006; that his advocate kept on briefing him on the progress of the suit until the year 2011 and that in the year 2018, he differed with his advocate.
3. According to the Plaintiff, in the year 2019, he instructed the current advocate to take over the matter and that on perusal of the court file, he discovered that the matter was dismissed on 27th March, 2017 for want of prosecution.
4. The Plaintiff finally deponed that he was unaware that the matter was scheduled on 27th March, 2017 for dismissal; that neither his advocate nor the Defendants’ advocate attended court on 27th March, 2017 and that he is desirous, ready and able to prosecute the suit without any further delay.
5. The Defendants did not oppose the Application. The Plaintiff’s advocate did not file submissions but reiterated the contents of the Affidavit.
6. As correctly deponed by the Plaintiff, this suit was filed on 1st December, 2006. The record shows that the last time the matter was in court was on 24th November, 2011 when the court directed that the matter be fixed for hearing in the registry. However, those directions were never complied with for six (6) years, until when the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 27th March, 2017.
7. The Plaintiff has deponed that the last time his advocate updated him about the position of the case was in the year 2011. If that is the case, it means that between the year 2011 and 2017 when the matter was dismissed, the Plaintiff did not make a follow up, either with his advocate or the court registry to ascertain the progress of his case.
8. This court has held on numerous occasions that it is the responsibility of a litigant to keep himself abreast of any matter in court, and where his advocate does not progress the matter, to either appoint another advocate, or prosecute the matter himself. An indolent litigant cannot turn around and blame his advocate for not prosecuting his case expeditiously when he does not show any interest or diligence on his part.
9. The Plaintiff has not given any explanation why he did not take any action in progressing the suit between the years 2011 to 2017. If he believes that his advocate was negligent in prosecuting the suit, then he should seek damages from the said advocate. However, this court having dismissed the matter for want of prosecution cannot revive the same due to his indolence.
10. For those reasons, the Application dated 3rd April, 2019 is dismissed with no order as to costs. For avoidance of doubt, the suit stands dismissed.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE