[2017] KEELC 3581 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to specify the alleged court technicalities that prevented her from complying with the order to fix the suit for hearing within 45 days. The applicant did not demonstrate any attempt to set the matter down for hearing or explain the steps taken after learning of the new case...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3581 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rukia Raphael Thoya; Respondent: Stephen Wanura; Respondent: Kalolo Kibani/Baya – Magonzi Upgrading Project Committee; Respondent: Anderson Peru
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 18 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Injunctive Relief
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- AA Omollo
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Injunctive Relief, Transfer of Suit
- 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
Rukia Raphael Thoya
Applicant
Stephen Wanura
Respondent
Kalolo Kibani/Baya – Magonzi Upgrading Project Committee
Respondent
Anderson Peru
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Injunctive Relief
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for review of the order transferring the suit and requiring hearing within 45 days.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement of her suit and injunctive relief against the respondents.
- 3 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit was excusable or attributable to court technicalities.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to specify the alleged court technicalities that prevented her from complying with the order to fix the suit for hearing within 45 days. The applicant did not demonstrate any attempt to set the matter down for hearing or explain the steps taken after learning of the new case number. The delay of over one and a half years in seeking review was deemed inordinate and not excusable. The court held that the applicant had not been vigilant in prosecuting her suit and had not appealed the original order. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant, finding no merit in the prayers for review or injunctive relief.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- Prayer 2 and 4 of the motion are dismissed for lack of merit.
- Prayer 5 and 6 are dismissed as they have no foundation.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MOMBASA
ELC MISC. NO 18 OF 2016
RUKIA RAPHAEL THOYA…………………………..…....……PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
STEPHEN WANURA………………………..……1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
KALOLO KIBANI/BAYA – MAGONZI
UPGRADING………………………………..………2ND DEFENDANT/RESONDENT
PROJECT COMMITTEE……………………...…..3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
ANDERSON PERU……..………………......…….4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The plaintiff/applicant has moved this Court under the general powers of this Court (see 1A, 1B, 3A & 95 of the Civil Procedure Act) seeking for orders :
1. That this matter be certified as urgent and service of the same be dispensed with for reasons of urgency.
2. That the Court be pleased to review the orders issued on the 30th October, 2014 by Hon Justice Mukunya in High Court at Mombasa ELC No 325 of 2010 RUKIA RAPHAEL THOYA – VS – STEPHEN WANGURA AND OTHERS.
3. That the defendant be given the opportunity to defend his suit in the Chief Magistrate’s Court.
4. That this Court be pleased to grant leave to the applicant to fix a hearing date at the Chief Magistrate’s Court.
5. That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant temporary injunction Orders directed at the Respondents restraining them, their servants, agents, the police, assigns from in any way interfering with the Plaintiff’s use, occupation of Plot Number 301 Kibaoni or in any other way erecting a fence, wall or evicting the Plaintiff/Applicant form the suit premises.
6. That this Order be served upon the OCS Kilifi Police Station.
7. Costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by the grounds listed on the face of it inter alia that the time allowed for fixing the suit for hearing before the magistrate’s court was not sufficient and was overtaken by events. Further that the plaintiff has filed all the documents to stand trial.
3. The application is also supported by the affidavit of Dr John Khaminwa advocate for the plaintiff. Dr Khaminwa deposed that the delay was occasioned by the Court technicalities which should not be visited on the plaintiff. He attached a letter dated 15. 1.2016 addressed to the Deputy Registrar of this Court seeking from the Deputy Registrar to confirm if the file had been transferred. That the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case has caused her to suffer great loss and damage. He deposed that it is in the interests of justice that application be allowed.
4. The application is opposed by the Respondents vide a replying affidavit sworn to by their advocate Mr Tamimi Lewa. He deposed that the order the subject of this review was made pursuant to their application dated 6th March 2014 seeking to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit for want of prosecution. He deposed that it is obvious from the very beginning that the applicant was not keen to prosecute her suit. Further that the applicant has herself to blame since the order was made in the presence of her counsel and that the Respondent went ahead to serve the said order. They urged the Court to dismiss the application dated 20. 6.2016.
5. The parties’ advocates made oral submissions which I have considered. The applicant is substantially seeking a review of the order of the Judge made on 30. 10. 2014 that transferred her suit to the subordinate Court and required her to fix the case for hearing before the lapse of 45 days or else her suit stands dismissed. The applicant blames Court technicalities for not being able to comply with this order. The applicant has however not denied that she was aware of this order.
6. The said Court technicalities are not specified. The applicant has also not stated that she attempted to fix the matter for hearing but could not find the file. The 45 days from 30. 10. 2014 would lapse on 15. 12. 14. It is not until 15. 1.2015 when a letter was written to the Deputy Registrar seeking to know if the file was transferred. The applicant does not also explain the steps she took to fix this matter for hearing after she learnt of the new case number being PMCC No 75 of 2015. It is interesting to note that inspite of all these, the applicant chose to move this Court on 20. 6.2016 which is 1 ½ years later and still shift blame on the Court for her indolence.
7. I would have wished to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant but I find her guilty of inordinate delay particularly taking into consideration that the Respondents had earlier moved the Court to dismiss her suit for want of prosecution. She has not convinced me that she has been vigilant enough to prosecute her suit to warrant the granting of the orders sought in exercise of the overriding objectives of this Court. Secondly she did not appeal against the order when it was made that 45 days was not sufficient time for her to set down the suit for hearing. Consequently I find prayer 2 & 4 of the motion lacking in merit. Prayer 5 & 6 collapses automatically for they have no foundation upon which they can stand. Costs of this application is awarded to the Respondents.
Dated and delivered in Mombasa this 21st day of February 2017
A. OMOLLO
JUDGE