[2017] KEELC 656 (KLR)
The court found that the application for reinstatement of the suit, filed over a year prior, had not been prosecuted by the applicant. The court emphasized that it could not issue a notice to show cause for a suit already dismissed and that the applicant's inaction in prosecuting the reinstatement application was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 656 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Z. M'Nairobi M'Ruthiomi suing through Phiminos K. Zachary as the next friend; Plaintiff: Mujira Mariene; Defendant: Stanely Ngai M'Raini; Defendant: Santurina Mugero sued as the legal representative of Mwenda Naincu; Defendant: Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Meru South/Maara District; Defendant: Honourable Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 219 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Suit
- Outcome
- application for reinstatement dismissed; suit remains dismissed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Notice to Show Cause, Delay in Prosecution
- 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
Z. M'Nairobi M'Ruthiomi suing through Phiminos K. Zachary as the next friend
Plaintiff
Mujira Mariene
Plaintiff
Stanely Ngai M'Raini
Defendant
Santurina Mugero sued as the legal representative of Mwenda Naincu
Defendant
Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Meru South/Maara District
Defendant
Honourable Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the applicant or their counsel was served with notice to show cause prior to dismissal.
- 3 Whether the delay in prosecuting the application for reinstatement is justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for reinstatement of the suit, filed over a year prior, had not been prosecuted by the applicant. The court emphasized that it could not issue a notice to show cause for a suit already dismissed and that the applicant's inaction in prosecuting the reinstatement application was fatal. The absence of diligent prosecution of the application, despite the applicant's knowledge of the dismissal, led the court to summarily dismiss the application for reinstatement. The suit thus remains dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Court Disposition
application for reinstatement dismissed; suit remains dismissed
Orders
- The application for reinstatement of the suit is dismissed summarily.
- The suit remains dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT CHUKA
CHUKKA ELC CASE NO. 219 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC 112 OF 2010
Z.M’NAIROBI M’RUTHIOMI SUING
THROUGH PHIMINOS K.
ZACHARY AS THE NEXT FRIEND......................1ST PLAINTIFF
MUJIRA MARIENE................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
STANELY NGAI M’RAINI.....................................1ST DEFENDANT
SANTURINA MUGERO SUED AS THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF MWENDA NAINCU......2ND DEFENDANT
LAND ADJUDICATION AND SETTLEMENT
OFFICER MERU SOUTH/MAARA DISTRICT....3RD DEFENDANT
HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL..............4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This application concerns an application for reinstatement of the suit dated 30. 11. 2017. It seeks the following orders:-
1. That this suit be reinstated and the same be set (sic) for hearing.
2. Cost of this application be provided for.
2. It has the following grounds:-
a) That this suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 8th July, 2015.
b) That neither the applicant nor the counsel for the applicant was served with the notice to show cause.
c) That for a very long time counsel for the plaintiff/applicant has been tracing the file in the registry without success.
d) That the plaintiff/applicant is interested in prosecuting his case.
e) That it was as recently as August 2016 that counsel for the plaintiff/applicant came to learn that the suit had been dismissed for want of prosecution.
f) That while the applicant admits that justice delayed is justice denied it will be in the interest of justice that the applicant be granted another chance to aticulate his interest as set out in the plaint.
g) That it was not the respondent/defendant who moved the court to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution but the court itself consequently this being a court of equity it’s only fair that the applicant be allowed a chance to prosecute his case.
h) No party stand to suffer any prejudice if the orders sought are granted more so noting that the suit was not dismissed at the instance of the defendant/respondent.
3. This suit was dismissed on 8th July, 2015.
4. On 1st December, 2016, the plaintiff’s advocate filed an application for reinstatement of the suit dated 1st December, 2016. No efforts have been made to prosecute this application.
5. It is over one year since this application was filed.
6. The non-prosecution of this application places the court in a precarious situation as it cannot issue a Notice to Show Cause why the suit cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution when the suit is already dismissed.
7. In the circumstances, this application is dismissed summarily.
8. It is reiterated that this suit remains dismissed.
9. No costs are awarded
10. It is so ordered
Delivered in chambers at Chuka this 20th day of December, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE