[2022] KEELC 128 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 128 (KLR)

The court found that the delay in seeking reinstatement of the suit was both inordinate and unexplained, as no action had been taken since 2009 and the application for reinstatement was brought seven years after the dismissal. The only explanation offered was the alleged mistake of counsel, which the court found...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 128 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jelimo Keino Rosalia; Respondent: Sheril Sitienei; Respondent: Jonah Kiptanui Kosgei
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 8 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed; suit remains dismissed
Judges
MN Mwanyale
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay and Laches, Service of Notice
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Reinstatement of Suit Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay and Laches Service of Notice

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jelimo Keino Rosalia

Applicant

Sheril Sitienei

Respondent

Jonah Kiptanui Kosgei

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in seeking reinstatement was inordinate and unexplained.
  3. 3 Whether service of the dismissal notice was properly effected on the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in seeking reinstatement of the suit was both inordinate and unexplained, as no action had been taken since 2009 and the application for reinstatement was brought seven years after the dismissal. The only explanation offered was the alleged mistake of counsel, which the court found insufficient. Furthermore, the court established that the notice of dismissal was properly served on the applicant's advocates. Applying the test from Ivita v Kyumbu, the court held that justice would not be served by reinstating the suit after such prolonged and unexplained delay. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its discretion to reinstate the suit and dismissed the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed; suit remains dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 9th March 2022 is dismissed.
  • The suit remains dismissed.