[2023] KEELC 948 (KLR)
The court found that the defendants had no plausible justification for failing to file a defence for over eight years, despite being represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The court emphasized that pleadings are foundational to litigation and that compliance with procedural rules, including Order 11, is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 948 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lydia Wanjiku Ruenji; Defendant: Thomas Omwenga; Defendant: Daniel Sibwori; Interested Party: Florence Ouma Jangara
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 609 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Status of Defence and Directions for Hearing
- Outcome
- Suit to proceed as an undefended claim due to defendants' failure to file a defence.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Failure to File Defence, Case Management, Order 11 Civil Procedure Rules, Right to Be Heard, Undefended Claim
- 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
Lydia Wanjiku Ruenji
Plaintiff
Thomas Omwenga
Defendant
Daniel Sibwori
Defendant
Florence Ouma Jangara
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Status of Defence and Directions for Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants' failure to file a defence for over eight years is justified.
- 2 Whether the suit should proceed as an undefended claim due to lack of defence.
- 3 Whether the defendants' non-compliance with Order 11 Civil Procedure Rules affects their right to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendants had no plausible justification for failing to file a defence for over eight years, despite being represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The court emphasized that pleadings are foundational to litigation and that compliance with procedural rules, including Order 11, is mandatory. The defendants' failure to file a defence and comply with case management requirements deprived the plaintiff of knowledge of the defendants' case and undermined the integrity of the proceedings. The court held that the right to be heard, while fundamental, is not absolute and can be forfeited by a party's own inaction and disregard for procedural rules....
Court Disposition
Suit to proceed as an undefended claim due to defendants' failure to file a defence.
Orders
- The orders given earlier in the morning are affirmed.
- The suit shall proceed as an undefended claim in view of the fact that no statements of defence were ever filed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Ruenji & another v Omwenga & another; Jangara (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 609 of 2014) [2023] KEELC 948 (KLR) (14 February 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 948 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 609 of 2014
LN Mbugua, J
February 14, 2023
Between
Lydia Wanjiku Ruenji
Plaintiff
and
FLORENCE OUMA JANGARA
Interested Party
and
Thomas Omwenga
1st Defendant
Daniel Sibwori
2nd Defendant
and
Florence Ouma Jangara
Interested Party
Ruling
1. This court rendered its decision this morning on the issue of application for adjournment made by counsel for the 2nd & 3rd defendants.
2. The counsel for 2nd & 3rd defendants has now informed the court that they never filed a defence! yet the matter has been scheduled for hearing on several occasions previously. And as far back as July 28, 2019, Mr. Gekonge was still acting for the defendants; Even before that day the defendants were still represented though by another advocate (Chuma & Mburu Advocates). Thus the withdraw of instructions sometime in year 2021 and the renewal of such instructions thereafter cannot be the basis of failing to file a defence!.
3. A pleading is the foundational document in which a party sets out their claim or refutes the claim of the rival party and also forms a basis of the issues for determination. This suit was filed way back in 2014 and no plausible reasons have been advanced as to why the defendants did not file a defence for the last 8 or so years. What I find appalling is that it is this court which suo- moto probed the defence counsel to indicate whether there was a statement of defence on record. By then the court had embarked on conducting a case management exercise just before the actual trial. It means that the defendants have kept the plaintiff in the dark as to what their claim is all about.
4. Similarly, no good reasons have been advanced as to why the defendants did not comply with the provisions of Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules in relation to filing witness statements and documentary evidence.
5. The right to be heard is sacrosanct as it is the fundamental basis of a fair hearing. However, this is a case whereby the defendants have squandered that right.
6. In the circumstances the orders given by this court earlier on in the morning are hereby affirmed noting that one way or the other, litigation must come to an end.
7. For avoidance of doubts, the suit shall proceed as an undefended claim in view of the fact that no statements of defence were ever filed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Njiraini for PlaintiffGekonge for 2nd & 3rd Defendant