[2017] KEHC 1046 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a valid explanation for the delay in filing the suit, as the initial ground of prolonged hospitalization was withdrawn and unsupported by evidence. The application was brought under an incorrect legal provision, further undermining its validity. Additionally, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1046 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Silvano Kambi Muranjeri; Respondent: Thambana Farmers Co-op. Society
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 204 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Leave to File Out of Time, Procedural Irregularities
- 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
Silvano Kambi Muranjeri
Applicant
Thambana Farmers Co-op. Society
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds for leave to file a suit out of time under the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the suit has been adequately explained by the applicant.
- 3 Whether the intended suit has any chances of success given the prior judgment and recovery.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a valid explanation for the delay in filing the suit, as the initial ground of prolonged hospitalization was withdrawn and unsupported by evidence. The application was brought under an incorrect legal provision, further undermining its validity. Additionally, the respondent provided documentary evidence that the deductions were made pursuant to a lawful court order in Embu PMCC No. 316 of 1995, and the applicant did not produce any evidence to challenge the lawfulness of the recovery. Consequently, the court held that the intended suit had no chances of success and that granting leave would be futile. The application was dismissed with...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for leave to file suit out of time is dismissed.
- The applicant shall bear the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 204 OF 2014
SILVANO KAMBI MURANJERI…………...……...............APPLICANT
VERSUS
THAMBANA FARMERS CO-OP. SOCIETY................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. This is ruling on the application dated 1/11/2014 seeking for leave to file a suit out of time and for costs of the application.
2. The application is supported by affidavit of Silvano Kiambi Muruanjeri. He depones that the cause of action arose between 1994 and 1995 as a result of illegal deductions of KShs.89,198. 75 made by the respondent from his coffee proceeds account. It is further stated that the applicant was hospitalized for a long period which caused the delay in filing the suit. The claim is now time barred and it is a mandatory pre-requisite that leave be granted.
3. The application was opposed by the respondent who deposed that he sued the applicant in the year 1985 for a sum of Kshs.89,198. 15 in Embu PMCC No. 316 of 1995. Judgment was entered in the favour of the applicant and the decretal amount was recovered from the respondent drawn from his coffee proceeds account. For that reason, there is no cause of action that lies on part of the applicant against the respondent. The said deductions were done in pursuance of a court order and were therefore lawful.
4. Mr. Kathungu for the respondent argued that the application ought to have been brought under Section 27 and 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act. To the contrary, the applicant has cited the wrong provisions of the law. He argued further it is not true that the applicant was hospitalized for a long time as alleged. The applicant has failed to explain the delay. It is also stated that the intended suit has no chances of success.
5. It is true that the application has been brought under Section 37 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provision does not exist. The orders sought are for leave to file a suit out of time. The correct provisions are Section 27 and 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act. Surprisingly the application was drafted by an advocate who was later withdrawn from acting for the applicant.
6. During the hearing of the application, the applicant indicated that he was never hospitalized and that it was his advocate who included that ground in the application.
7. The provisions of Section 28 of the Act require that delay in filing the intended suit be explained. The main reason in this application was that the applicant was hospitalized for a long time. Having withdrawn that reason which was not supported by any evidence, his application has no tangible ground. The applicant has therefore failed to explain delay.
8. The respondent annexed a copy of the decree in PMCC No. 316 of 1995 in which the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent KShs.89,198. 15 together with interest at bank rates and costs of the suit. This supports the respondent’s case that the amount was recovered in satisfaction of the decree.
9. The applicant has not annexed any document to controvert the evidence adduced by the respondent that the recovery was unlawful as he alleges. Consequently, the intended suit has no chances of success and it would be futile to grant the leave sought in this application.
10. This application therefore lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 14TH DECEMBER, 2017.
F. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Applicant present
Ms. Kavandi for Kathungu for respondent