[2019] KEELC 2396 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2396 (KLR)

The court found that there was no inordinate delay in bringing the application to set aside the dismissal, as the plaintiffs acted promptly upon learning of the dismissal. The court also noted that the plaintiffs were not served with the Notice To Show Cause, which is a procedural requirement before dismissal for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2396 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ruth Cheruiyot; Plaintiff: Henry Cheruiyot; Defendant: Samuel Soitanae Ole Koriata; Defendant: Peter Ole Koriata
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 32 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
Application allowed; suit reinstated.
Judges
MN Kullow
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Notice to Show Cause, Delay and Laches
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Reinstatement of Suit Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Notice to Show Cause Delay and Laches

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruth Cheruiyot

Plaintiff

Henry Cheruiyot

Plaintiff

Samuel Soitanae Ole Koriata

Defendant

Peter Ole Koriata

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs were served with Notice To Show Cause prior to dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether there was inordinate delay in filing the application for reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no inordinate delay in bringing the application to set aside the dismissal, as the plaintiffs acted promptly upon learning of the dismissal. The court also noted that the plaintiffs were not served with the Notice To Show Cause, which is a procedural requirement before dismissal for want of prosecution. Given the nature of the dispute involving land, the court held that it would be just and fair to reinstate the suit and allow the plaintiffs another opportunity to prosecute their case. The application to set aside the dismissal was therefore allowed, and the suit reinstated, with a direction that the plaintiffs fix the suit for hearing within 60 days.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; suit reinstated.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 5th December, 2018 is allowed.
  • The suit is reinstated.