[2018] KEELC 3465 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had provided detailed and credible reasons for the non-appearance on the date the suit was dismissed. The applicant had shown diligence in prosecuting the matter, as evidenced by the filing of submissions and prior compliance with court directions. The only pending issue was the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3465 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chairman Meru Central District Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: Kimathi Patrick Rimberia; Applicant: Gerald Rimberia M’riria (Deceased); Applicant: Kenneth Kiambi Rimberia
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 27 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Application for Reinstatement of Suit
- Outcome
- application allowed with costs to the 2nd interested party
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Reinstatement of Suit, Land Disputes Tribunal, Dismissal for Nonappearance
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Chairman Meru Central District Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Kimathi Patrick Rimberia
Interested Party
Gerald Rimberia M’riria (Deceased)
Applicant
Kenneth Kiambi Rimberia
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Reinstatement of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for non-appearance of the ex parte applicant.
- 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for non-attendance on the hearing date.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had provided detailed and credible reasons for the non-appearance on the date the suit was dismissed. The applicant had shown diligence in prosecuting the matter, as evidenced by the filing of submissions and prior compliance with court directions. The only pending issue was the delivery of judgment, and the failure to attend court on the material date was not due to indolence or lack of interest. In the interests of justice, and considering the efforts made by the applicant, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for reinstatement of the suit, albeit with costs to the 2nd interested party.
Court Disposition
application allowed with costs to the 2nd interested party
Orders
- The application dated 3.8.2017 is allowed.
- The suit is reinstated.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
JR NO. 27 OF 2009
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF MERU CENTRAL DISTRICT LAND
DISPUTE TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 67 OF 2008
AND
IN THE MATTER OF MERU CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT LDT CASE NO. 19 OF 2009
AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND AND PARCELS NOS.
ABOTHUGUCHI/KATHERI/2418, 2419, 2420 AND 2421
REPUBLIC..........................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE CHAIRMAN MERU CENTRAL DISTRICT
LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL.....................................................RESPONDENT
KIMATHI PATRICK RIMBERIA...........................2ND INTERESTED PARTY
GERALD RIMBERIA M’RIRIA (DECEASED)..1ST EXPARTE APPLICANT
KENNETH KIAMBI RIMBERIA.........................2ND EXPARTE APPLICANT
RULING
1. The application dated 3. 8.2017 seeks to have this suit reinstated. The grounds in support of the application are found in the body of the application and in the supporting affidavit of the applicant.
2. The application is opposed vide the replying affidavit of the 2nd interested party filed on 5. 53. 2018.
3. I find that the date of 14. 6.2017 was given by the court whereby the matter, being one of the old cases at the station was earmarked to be handled during a scheduled service week by a visiting judge.
4. It is noted that the matter was dismissed on 14. 6.2017 because there was no appearance for the exparte applicant.
5. What has emerged is that the applicants advocate did not go to court on that day. However, applicant has given minute details of the efforts he made towards the prosecution of the matter. I have also noted that indeed what was pending in the file is the directions on judgment writing as directions on hearing of the case had been given earlier on 23. 3.2013 and submissions were filed.
6. In the circumstances, the application dated 3. 8.2017 is allowed but with costs to the 2nd interested party.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 25th APRIL, 2018
IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
Court Assistant:Janet/Galgalo
Ngunjiri for exparte applicant present
Attorney General for respondent absent
Mutegi for 2nd interested party present
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE