[2023] KEELC 16962 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with court directions to file and serve his trial bundle and did not appear in court on the scheduled date. After the suit was dismissed, the plaintiff waited one and a half years before filing the application for reinstatement. The court held that the delay was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 16962 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joseph Kinuthia Mungai; Defendant: Hellen Mugambi; Defendant: Ephanuel Mugambi Muchiri; Defendant: Embakasi Ranching Co. Ltd
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 614 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Reinstatement Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Dismissed Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Suit, Inordinate Delay, Dismissal for Non Prosecution, Compliance With Court Orders
- 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
Joseph Kinuthia Mungai
Plaintiff
Hellen Mugambi
Defendant
Ephanuel Mugambi Muchiri
Defendant
Embakasi Ranching Co. Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Reinstatement Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Dismissed Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit was satisfactorily explained.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with court directions to file and serve his trial bundle and did not appear in court on the scheduled date. After the suit was dismissed, the plaintiff waited one and a half years before filing the application for reinstatement. The court held that the delay was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained, rejecting the plaintiff's reliance on the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification since courts were operational during that period. The court concluded that the interests of justice and fair administration required that the suit remain dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant
Orders
- The application dated December 2, 2022 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the 1st defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Mungai v Mugambi & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 614 of 2017) [2023] KEELC 16962 (KLR) (20 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 16962 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 614 of 2017
LN Mbugua, J
April 20, 2023
Between
Joseph Kinuthia Mungai
Plaintiff
and
Hellen Mugambi
1st Defendant
Ephanuel Mugambi Muchiri
2nd Defendant
Embakasi Ranching Co. Ltd
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. This suit was dismissed on June 16, 2021. The application before me dated December 2, 2022 is brought by the plaintiff for the reinstatement of the said suit. The applicant contends that there was a communication break down between him and his advocate because of the corona pandemic. He avers that he is keen to prosecute this suit.
2. The 1st defendant has opposed the application vide her replying affidavit dated February 17, 2023 contending that the applicant has not been diligent in the prosecution of this case, thus there has been inordinate delay in the matter.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced herein. The issue for determination is whether this suit should be reinstated. In the case of Mwangi S. Kimenyi v Attorney General and Another [2014] eKLR the court stated that;“The decision whether a suit should be re-instated for trial is a matter of justice and it depends on the facts of the case….”.
4. I have perused the entire record, before and after the dismissal of the suit. I find that on December 11, 2017, the plaintiff was directed to file and serve his paginated trial bundle containing his witness statements and documentary evidence within 45 days and the matter was then slated for May 14, 2018 to confirm compliance. However, on the said date of May 14, 2018, the plaintiff had not only failed to comply with court’s directions, but there was even no appearance on his side, yet the counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendants was present. Thereafter, there is nothing to indicate that the plaintiff was ever ready for the trial.
5. After the dismissal of the suit on June 16, 2021, the current application was not filed until one and a half years later in December of 2022.
6. It is crystal clear that there has been inordinate delay in the prosecution of this case and the same has been manifested throughout the lifespan of the case. The applicant cannot therefore blame the covid 19 pandemic for the delay. In any event, the courts were up and running during the covid period albeit virtually.
7. In the case of Fran Investments Limited v G4S Security Services Limited [2015] eKLR, it was stated that:“The delay has not been satisfactorily explained and is a source of prejudice to the Respondent as well as to the fair administration of justice. These are sufficient reasons to refuse to reinstate a suit and let it lie in peace in judicial grave…”.
8. Similarly, I find the delay herein has not been satisfactorily explained. The application dated December 2, 2022 is hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Kirui for PlaintiffMagire for 1st & 2nd DefendantsCourt assistant: Joan