[2019] KEELC 4573 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant and his advocate had not demonstrated seriousness or diligence in prosecuting the matter, as evidenced by the failure to fix the suit for hearing within the court-ordered period and the subsequent filing of multiple applications for reinstatement without reasonable explanation. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 4573 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: M’Nguthari M’Ithewa alias Karimoni; Respondent: The Isiolo County Government
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 88 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate a Previously Dismissed Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs; file closed and archived
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Judicial Discretion, Case Backlog Management
- 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
M’Nguthari M’Ithewa alias Karimoni
Applicant
The Isiolo County Government
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate a Previously Dismissed Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application to reinstate the previously dismissed application should be allowed.
- 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient cause for the delay and lack of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant and his advocate had not demonstrated seriousness or diligence in prosecuting the matter, as evidenced by the failure to fix the suit for hearing within the court-ordered period and the subsequent filing of multiple applications for reinstatement without reasonable explanation. The court emphasized the importance of clearing case backlogs and the need for parties to comply with timelines set by the court. In the absence of any reasonable basis for the delay or for granting the application, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application with costs to the respondent and ordered the file closed and archived.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs; file closed and archived
Orders
- The application dated 12.10.2018 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- This file is marked as CLOSED and is to be taken to the archives.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 88 OF 2008
M’NGUTHARI M’ITHEWA alias KARIMONI.......PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE ISIOLO COUNTY GOVERNMENT.........DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This case was fixed by the court on 15. 6.2017 during the service week and the Judge gave another date of 23. 6.2017 for Notice to show cause. On 23. 6.2017, the Judge gave directions to the effect that the matter was to be listed down for hearing within 3 months failure to which the matter was to stand as dismissed.
2. The matter was not fixed for hearing within the given period. An application was then filed on 8. 12. 2017 by plaintiff to have the suit reinstated. This application was dismissed on 24. 9.2018 for want of prosecution.
3. Thereafter, plaintiff filed another application on 23. 10. 2018 for reinstatement of the application of 6. 12. 2017. This ruling is in respect of that application of 23. 10. 2018.
4. I must point out that Judiciary has embraced its vision of SUSTAINING JUDICIARY TRANSFORMATION (SJT) where one of the key drivers is service delivery. One of the most visible strategy undertaken by the judiciary in this vision is the clearance of case backlog. Since 2017, the Judiciary has been keen on ensuring that cases which have been in court for a period of over five years are heard and determined. Meru ELC is one of the court station that was reeling under the weight of very many old cases. Against this background, the station was given a special service week programme where visiting Judges would come to hear the old matters.
5. This being a 2008 matter, it was earmarked to benefit from the aforementioned service week exercise. That is why the registry listed the matter before Judge Cherono on 15. 6.2017.
6. In the case of Utalii Transport Co. Ltd and 3 others vs NIC Bank Ltd and another (2014) eKLR, the court had this to say on matters dismissal and the exercise of court’s discretion;
“What matters is the overall impression the court makes out of the analysis of the above principles within the circumstances of the case in question…….”.
7. The impression I get is that the applicant and his advocate are certainly not serious. 1 ½ years down from the time a notice to show cause was issued in June 2017, the court is being invited “to deal with an application to reinstate another application to reinstate the suit!”.
8. The applicant has conducted this matter in a rather cavalier manner and I find no reasonable basis to allow the application. The application dated 12. 10. 2018 is therefore dismissed with costs to Respondent This file is marked as CLOSED and it is to be taken to the archives.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 20TH FEBRUARY, 2019
IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
Miss Munga for applicant
Ngunjiri holding brief for respondent
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE