[2019] KEELC 1632 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant failed to prosecute the suit for over three years and provided no plausible explanation for the delay, the application for reinstatement was filed promptly after dismissal. The court considered the age of the suit, noting it was not among the oldest cases, and observed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 1632 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Razaro M’Amai M’Rukunga; Respondent: Sabera Nkina
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 160 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application for reinstatement allowed with costs to the respondent.
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Razaro M’Amai M’Rukunga
Applicant
Sabera Nkina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in prosecuting the suit.
- 3 Whether the promptness in filing the application for reinstatement justifies granting the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant failed to prosecute the suit for over three years and provided no plausible explanation for the delay, the application for reinstatement was filed promptly after dismissal. The court considered the age of the suit, noting it was not among the oldest cases, and observed that the applicant appeared vigilant in seeking to reinstate the matter. Balancing the need to clear case backlogs with the interests of justice, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for reinstatement, granting the applicant another opportunity to prosecute the case, but awarded costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Application for reinstatement allowed with costs to the respondent.
Orders
- The application dated 25.5.2018 is allowed.
- The suit is reinstated for hearing and determination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 160 OF 2014
RAZARO M’AMAI M’RUKUNGA ................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
SABERA NKINA ........................................................DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This suit was dismissed on 7. 5.2018 for want of prosecution triggering the filing of the application dated 25. 5.2018 where plaintiff seeks the reinstatement of the suit. Plaintiff avers that he is interested in the case. He explains that on the date matter was listed for notice to show cause, his advocate was abruptly called to another court. Somehow the counsel who was left to hold brief did not manage to address the court.
2. The respondent has opposed the application via her replying affidavit. She avers that plaintiff has not taken any steps for a period of 3 years to prosecute the suit prior to the suit being dismissed. She also avers that Mr. Ayub Anampiu, the counsel who was allegedly holding brief for Mr. Rimita, advocate for applicant has not sworn any affidavit to state what actually happened on 7. 5.2018 and that the firm of Mr. Rimita has more than 3 advocates.
3. I have considered all the arguments raised herein as well as the submissions of the parties. Indeed there is no plausible explanation as to why no steps were taken to prosecute the case for a period of 3 or so years. However, I have considered the promptness with which this application was brought forth. The suit was dismissed on 7. 5.2018 and in less than a month, plaintiff had filed the present application.
4. Even though this court has been keen to clear the backlog of cases in this station, I must consider the circumstances of each case. This particular case was filed in 2014 October so it was about 3 ½ years old by the time of dismissal. It was certainly not in the category of the very old cases in this station. Considering that applicant appears vigilant, I am inclined to grant him another opportunity to prosecute his case.
5. The application dated 25. 5.2018 is hence allowed but with costs to respondent.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
Mbogo holding brief for Rimita for applicant
Gitonga JGH holding brief for Ndubi for respondent
Applicant
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE