[2011] KEHC 1142 (KLR)
The court found that the delays in prosecuting the suit were not attributable to the plaintiffs or their counsel but were due to administrative issues such as non-listing in the cause list and the loss of the original court file, both of which are the responsibility of the court registry. The court emphasized that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1142 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Wilson K. Kipkoti; Plaintiff: Ufanisi Auto Service Ltd; Defendant: Timothy Nduvi Mutungi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 501 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Mandatory Injunction, Permanent Injunction, Transfer of Land, Locus Standi
- 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
Wilson K. Kipkoti
Plaintiff
Ufanisi Auto Service Ltd
Plaintiff
Timothy Nduvi Mutungi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the suit should be struck out for lack of reasonable cause of action or locus standi.
- 3 Whether delays in prosecution were attributable to the plaintiffs or to the court registry.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the delays in prosecuting the suit were not attributable to the plaintiffs or their counsel but were due to administrative issues such as non-listing in the cause list and the loss of the original court file, both of which are the responsibility of the court registry. The court emphasized that neither party should be penalized for circumstances beyond their control. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiffs' suit could not be characterized as frivolous or vexatious based on the pleadings, and that parties should be afforded an opportunity to have their case heard on the merits. Dismissing or striking out the suit at this stage would unjustly deprive the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The defendant's application dated 20th April, 2011 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs.
- Parties to proceed to the next stage in line with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules for hearing on merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
ELC CIVIL SUIT NO. 501 OF 2009
WILSON K. KIPKOTI …………………......................................………………… 1ST PLAINTIFF
UFANISI AUTO SERVICE LTD ………........................................………………. 2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
TIMOTHY NDUVI MUTUNGI …………….........................................………….. DEFENDANT
RULING
The dispute in this suit involves a parcel of land known as LR No. 25799/3 said to have been purchased by the 2nd plaintiff from the defendant. The 1st plaintiff owns 50% shares in the 2nd plaintiff. The defendant was required by an express term of the sale agreement between him and the 2nd plaintiff to transfer the suit property to the 2nd plaintiff. Although the defendant signed the transfer of the suit property to the 2nd plaintiff, the same was not registered owing to failure to pay stamp duty. It is the plaintiffs’ case that the defendant intends to transfer the suit property to a third party whereas he has received full payment of the purchase price, and is bound to transfer the property to the purchaser, who is the 2nd plaintiff.
In this suit therefore, the plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant or his agents, servants or any party claiming under him from selling and or disposing, constructing or wasting and or transferring the suit property to any other person. There is also an order sought for mandatory injunction compelling the defendant to transfer the suit property to the 2nd plaintiff.
The defendant denied the plaintiffs’ claim and filed a lengthy statement of defence to that effect, the bottom line of it being that, at no time did he transfer his land to the 2nd plaintiff. There is now before me an application by way of Notice of Motion seeking an order that this suit be dismissed for want of prosecution. There is an alternative prayer that this suit brought by a plaint dated 2nd October, 2009 be struck out.
The order sought for dismissal for want of prosecution is based on the fact that from 26th January, 2010 when the suit was last in court, which added up to 15 months as at the time of filing this application, no action had been taken by the plaintiff to prosecute the suit. Even after the plaintiffs obtained an ex-parte injunction they failed to prosecute the application which was subsequently discharged by the court. It is also the defendant’s position that the plaintiffs have no cause of action or reasonable cause of action and lack locus standi to sue the defendant and therefore the suit is incompetent.
The application is opposed and both learned counsel have filed written submissions to address the said application. I have gone through the record before me. I observe from the outset that some of the arguments advanced by both learned counsel relate to issues drawn from the pleadings and which can only be canvassed at a full trial.
The material before me shows that on one or two occasions the case could not proceed because of non -listing in the cause list. This omission cannot be blamed on either the plaintiffs or their counsel. This is the responsibility of the court registry. There is also evidence that the original record went missing and the file had to be reconstructed following an order made by the deputy registrar. Again, the plaintiffs and their counsel, and I hasten to add the defendant or his counsel, are not the custodians of the court files and once again this cannot be blamed on the parties.
Unpleasant correspondence coached in hard language has been exchanged between counsel. This is unfortunate. That notwithstanding, I have looked at the plaint. The plaintiff’s suit, with profound respect, cannot be said to be frivolous or vexetious in view of the pleadings contained therein. However weak a party’s suit may be, a party should have their day in court. To dismiss or to strike out the suit would be to drive a party out of judgment seat. Courts should endeavour to maintain a suit rather than dismissing or striking it out so that the issues involved can be addressed at a full hearing.
I am inclined therefore to dismiss the defendant’s application dated 20th April, 2011 with costs to the plaintiffs. I note that the pleadings herein are closed. The parties should move to the next stage in line with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules so that this suit is listed for hearing on merit.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 22nd day of September, 2011
A.MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE