[2011] KEHC 3401 (KLR)
The court found that although there was delay in prosecuting the suit, the Plaintiff had taken steps to set the matter down for hearing on two occasions. The delay was not so inordinate or inexcusable as to warrant dismissal for want of prosecution. The court held that the facts did not support the view that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 3401 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Zakayo Kimeto Leloo; Defendant: Julius Soi; Defendant: Paul Soi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 9 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Judicial Discretion, Land Trespass, Eviction Proceedings
- 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
Zakayo Kimeto Leloo
Plaintiff
Julius Soi
Defendant
Paul Soi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay by the Plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff has lost interest in prosecuting the suit.
- 3 Whether the delay in setting the suit down for hearing is excusable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there was delay in prosecuting the suit, the Plaintiff had taken steps to set the matter down for hearing on two occasions. The delay was not so inordinate or inexcusable as to warrant dismissal for want of prosecution. The court held that the facts did not support the view that the Plaintiff had lost interest in the case. Accordingly, the court declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the suit and instead directed that the matter be fixed for hearing, with the Plaintiff to be served with a hearing notice. The costs of the application were awarded to the Defendants in any event.
Court Disposition
Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed.
Orders
- The application for dismissal of the suit is dismissed.
- The suit shall be fixed for hearing and the Plaintiff shall be served with a hearing notice.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KERICHO
CIVIL CASE NO. 9 OF 2008
ZAKAYO KIMETO LELOO……………......……………………...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JULIUS SOI.……………………………….... ………….....1ST DEFENDANT
PAUL SOI ……………………………….....……………….2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The two Defendants, JULIUS SOI and PAUL SOI, have in their Notice of Motion dated 4th October, 2010 sought dismissal of the suit herein on the grounds, inter alia, that for over two years the Plaintiff has failed to set the suit down for hearing. The Defendants aver that they continue to suffer anxiety due to the pendency of the suit. They seek the dismissal of the suit under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules(now order 17 of the 2010 Civil Procedure Rules). Rules 5 of the repealed Rules states;
“5. If, within three months after-
(a)the close of pleadings; or
(b)(Deleted by L.N. 36/00)
(c)The removal of the suit from the hearing list; or
(d)The adjournment of the suit generally, the Plaintiff, or the court of its own motion on notice to the parties, does not set down the suit for hearing, the Defendant may either set the suit down for hearing or apply for its dismissal”.
In the new 2010 Rules, rule 2(1) of Order 17 provides;
“ 2(1) In any suit in which no application has been made or step taken by either party for one year, the court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit (should not be dismissed) and if cause is not shown to its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit”
The Plaintiff was served with the application for the dismissal of the suit but did not file grounds of opposition or a replying affidavit. The application proceeded to hearing ex parte. Miss Makori, learned counsel for the Defendants urged the court to dismiss the suit because it was patent that the Plaintiff had lost interest in it as he has not shown due diligence in prosecuting it. The delay, said Miss Makori, was inexcusable. Miss Makori relied in the application on the Uganda case of NILANI VERSUS PATEL AND OTHERS [1969] 1 EA 340 (HCU) in which the High Court of Uganda ( Dickson J ) held that there was inordinate delay in that case by the Plaintiff which was inexcusable because the Plaintiff’s suit was filed in August, 1959 and hearing was adjourned thrice at the behest of the Plaintiff between 1960 and 1963. The court dismissed the suit.
The suit herein was instituted on 18th March, 2008. The claim by the Plaintiff against the Defendants is that the 4th Defendant through “the District Officer Angata (not named as a Defendant) have threatened to trespass on the Plaintiff’s land No. Angata/Barikoi/421 and also evict the Plaintiff from the said land”. These allegations were denied by the Defendants who entered appearance and filed defence on 25th April, 2008. The suit was fixed for hearing by the Plaintiff on 10th March, 2009 but, was taken out of the hearing list by the Honourable Lady Justice Mary Ang’awa. It was fixed again for hearing by the Plaintiff on 13th October, 2009 but it did not proceed to hearing. The reason is not discernible from the file. Nothing seems to have happened after this until the Defendants filed the application to have the suit dismissed.
The facts emerging from the record do not support the view that the Plaintiff has totally lost interest in the case. He look initiative on 10th March, 2009 and again on 8th July, 2009 to set the suit down for hearing. The suit should have proceeded to hearing on 13th October, 2009 but it is not clear why it did not.
For the court to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, it must be patently clear that there is inordinate delay which is not excusable. I am not persuaded that the delay in this case is so inordinate as to be inexcusable. I decline to exercise my discretion to dismiss the suit. Instead, I shall proceed to fix it for hearing and require that the Plaintiff be served with a hearing notice. The costs of this application shall be borne by the Plaintiff in any event.
DATEDat KERICHO this 21st day of March, 2011
G.B.M. KARIUKI, sc
RESIDENT JUDGE
Advocates
Mr. P.O. Makori advocate for the Applicant.
No appearance by J.K. Rono for the Respondent
Court Clerk – Mr. Koech