[2017] KEELC 1410 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was afforded an opportunity to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed, and that the notice was properly served on the advocate on record at the relevant time. The court held that the delay in prosecuting the suit was inordinate and that no sufficient cause was shown to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1410 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Patrick Sitati Kisaka; Defendant: Thomson Namunyu Njibwakale; Defendant: Samuel Wamalwa Kuchikhi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 46 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- SN Mukunya
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Service of Process, Delay in Prosecution
- 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
Patrick Sitati Kisaka
Plaintiff
Thomson Namunyu Njibwakale
Defendant
Samuel Wamalwa Kuchikhi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether service of the dismissal notice on the previous advocate was sufficient.
- 3 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was afforded an opportunity to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed, and that the notice was properly served on the advocate on record at the relevant time. The court held that the delay in prosecuting the suit was inordinate and that no sufficient cause was shown to justify reinstatement. Furthermore, under Order 17 Rule 2, once a suit is dismissed for want of prosecution, the court becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal in the absence of a pending application for review. Accordingly, the application to reinstate the suit was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to set aside the dismissal of the suit is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA.
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT BUNGOMA.
CIVIL SUIT NO. 46 OF 2004.
PATRICK SITATI KISAKA……………………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS.
THOMSON NAMUNYU NJIBWAKALE……..1ST DEFENDANT
SAMUEL WAMALWA KUCHIKHI…………..2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G.
[1] A notice to dismiss this suit for want of prosecution was issued by the court on 1st July, 2015. It was served on the advocates for the parties on record. For the Plaintiff the notice was served on Waswa & Company the applicants advocate on record. Mr. J.S. Khakula who is now on record for the applicant in place of Waswa & Company argues that the dismissed notice was served on Waswa & Company and not themselves. That the case was heard on 1/7/2017 and not 2/7/2017 as the notice indicated. He argues that in the interests of justice the dismissal of the suit should be set aside.
Mr. Olonyi for respondent opposed the application. He argued that this is 2004 matter. That it has been in the court for 13 years. Counsel annexed the notice for dismissal that was served on them. He argued that the reinstatement of the case was prejudicial to his clients. He argued that, the fact that the case was not indicated on Mr. Khakula’s diary does not mean much because Counsel May have overlooked to indicate the case in his diary.
[2] That the case had earlier been dismissed by the court on 25/7/2013. It was only reinstated on terms. Having considered the arguments of both counsels, I am of the view that the notice issued by the court was to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed. The chance was accorded to the applicant when he came to argue this application. There was no cause shown to the satisfaction of the court why there was such a long delay. It did not matter that the case was fixed for 2nd and then heard on 1st of July 2015 or whether it was served on a different advocate provided, a chance to show cause was accorded to the applicant. A chance was truly afforded in this case. The court determined the case under order 17 rule 2. The court then became functus official since under that rule there is no provision for setting the order aside. There was no application for review of the order filed and/or pending in court.
The delay herein was inordinate. This application therefore cannot be granted. The application herein is therefore dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Judgment read in Open Court before M/s Wanjala.
Dated at Bungoma this 4th day of October, 2017.
S. MUKUNYA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Court Assistant: Chemutai/Joy
Miss Wanjala for Khakula for the Applicant
Firm of Areba for the Applicant