[2024] KEELC 394 (KLR)
The court found that the judicial review proceedings had been pending since 2004, amounting to over 19 years of delay. Despite the applicant's assertion of activity, the court record did not reflect compliance with previous directions, particularly regarding the filing of submissions. The court held that the matter...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 394 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Thomas Kimaru Muge; Respondent: Kapsabet Division Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: Mathew Kipkemboi Chirchir
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 23 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause Regarding Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Conditional extension granted; matter to be listed for hearing within 30 days or stand dismissed.
- Judges
- MN Mwanyale
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Review Proceedings, Delay in Prosecution, Notice to Show Cause
- 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
Thomas Kimaru Muge
Applicant
Kapsabet Division Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Mathew Kipkemboi Chirchir
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause Regarding Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the matter should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay.
- 2 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the substantive motion.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the judicial review proceedings had been pending since 2004, amounting to over 19 years of delay. Despite the applicant's assertion of activity, the court record did not reflect compliance with previous directions, particularly regarding the filing of submissions. The court held that the matter had been properly listed for notice to show cause and that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient cause to justify further delay. However, in the interest of justice, the court granted a final opportunity for the substantive motion to be set down for hearing within 30 days, failing which it would stand dismissed for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
Conditional extension granted; matter to be listed for hearing within 30 days or stand dismissed.
Orders
- The substantive motion dated 2nd February 2004 to be listed for hearing within 30 days from 25th January 2024, failing which the same stands dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Muge v Kapsabet Division Land Disputes Tribunal; Republic (Exparte); Chirchir (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 23 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 394 (KLR) (25 January 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 394 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
Environment & Land Case 23 of 2022
MN Mwanyale, J
January 25, 2024
Between
Thomas Kimaru Muge
Applicant
and
Kapsabet Division Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
and
Republic
Exparte
and
Mathew Kipkemboi Chirchir
Interested Party
Ruling
1. This matter was transferred from the High Court Eldoret on 2/8/2022 to this Court. Hitherto vide a ruling delivered on 27/8/2012, the Court granted the Exparte Applicant 30 days to fix the Notice of Motion dated 2/2/2004 for hearing for failure to which to stay orders issued on 16/01/2004 would be discharged.
2. The record shows that the matter did not take off till its transfer to Kapsabet where it was mentioned on various times on 16/2/2023, 11/5/2023 and 6/7/2023, 7/9/2023 and 16/11/2023 it was listed for a notice to show cause on 4/12/2023.
3. The Notice to Show Cause was fixed for hearing on 14/12/2023 whereat an affidavit to show cause by the Exparte Applicant; and a ruling of the Notice to Show Cause was thus reserved for today.
4. In his affidavit the Exparte Applicant depones that the matter is not ripe for dismissal for want of prosecution as it has been active.
5. The Exparte Applicant further deponed that on 16/11/2023 his Advocates were in Court to confirm compliance but did not address the Court due to a power failure and hence were surprised by the action of listing the matter for a Notice to Show Cause.
6. The Court notes that this Judicial Review Proceedings were commenced in the year 2004 and it has taken inordinately long to finalize the same; that there was a previous application to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution whose ruling is alluded to at paragraph 1 of this Ruling.
7. The compliance that is depones about is not evident on the Court record since they were directions issued on filing of submissions and it was thus properly listed the matter for a Notice to Show Cause.
8. Having perused the affidavit showing cause and taking into account that this matter has been in Court for over 19 years now the Court makes the following directions.i)The substantive motion dated 2nd February 2004 to be listed for hearing with 30 days from today failure to which the same stands dismissed.Orders accordingly.
RULING, DELIVERED AND DATED AT KAPSABET THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024. HON. M. N. MWANYALE,JUDGE.In the presence of;Mr. Korir for Exparte Applicant