[2024] KEELC 6566 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide a sufficient and reasonable explanation for the ten-year delay in prosecuting the suit. The medical reports submitted were dated from 2019 onwards and did not clarify when the 2nd applicant became ill, leaving a significant period unexplained. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 6566 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Nancy Wangui Ndiritu; Applicant: Joseph K Ndiritu; Respondent: Balcon Housing Company Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 239 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Leave to File Out of Time
- 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
Nancy Wangui Ndiritu
Applicant
Joseph K Ndiritu
Applicant
Balcon Housing Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient explanation for the delay in prosecuting the suit.
- 2 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to provide a sufficient and reasonable explanation for the ten-year delay in prosecuting the suit. The medical reports submitted were dated from 2019 onwards and did not clarify when the 2nd applicant became ill, leaving a significant period unexplained. The court emphasized that the applicants should have been particularly vigilant in following up on their matter, especially since the original suit was itself a miscellaneous application seeking leave to file out of time. The unexplained and prolonged delay was found to negatively impact the administration of justice, and as such, the application for reinstatement was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 30.5.2024 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Ndiritu & another v Balcon Housing Company Limited (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 239 of 2014) [2024] KEELC 6566 (KLR) (3 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 6566 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 239 of 2014
LN Mbugua, J
October 3, 2024
Between
Nancy Wangui Ndiritu
1st Applicant
Joseph K Ndiritu
2nd Applicant
and
Balcon Housing Company Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. Before me is the applicants’ Notice of Motion application dated 30. 5.2024 seeking orders to have the suit reinstated. The application is supported by the affidavit of the 1st applicant who contends that after the suit was filed, the 2nd applicant who is her husband suffered severe brain damage, hence the applicants were unable to follow up on the matter. They have availed the medical reports to support the application.
2. I have considered the material presented to this court as well as the history of the matter. This miscellaneous suit was filed on 16. 7.2014, but was dismissed on 11. 12. 2014 for want of prosecution.
3. In Mwangi S. Kimenyi vs 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. The applicants contend that they were unable to follow up on their case because of the ailment of the 2nd applicants. However, that explanation is insufficient since the medical reports are dated year 2019 onwards. In particular, the medical report of 22. 1.2019 simply state that the 2nd applicant had a history of alcohol dependency and had audio-visual hallucinations. There is no evidence as to exactly when the 2nd applicant fell ill. I find that the hiatus of 10 years (from 2014) has not reasonably been sufficiently explained and the delay in filing the current application impacts negatively on the overall administration of justice.
5. What more, it is noted that the miscellaneous suit itself was filed in order to seek leave to file the suit out of time!. Thus the applicants ought to have been extremely vigilant in following up their matter.
6. In the end, I find that the application dated 30. 5.2024 is not merited, the same is hereby dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Jaleny for the ApplicantCourt Assistant: Joan