Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2017] KEELC 505 (KLR)

Njiru Kabui v Kamburi Mubuta & 6 others [2017] KEELC 505 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 December 2017
1,415 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court refused to dismiss a stalled land case but gave the plaintiff three months to move it forward or lose it with costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants filed a Notice of Motion dated 19th May 2017 under Order 17 Rule 2(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking dismissal of the suit against them for want of prosecution. They argued that the suit was last in court on 14th March 2016, when the court learnt that the 1st defendant was deceased, and the plaintiff had taken no steps since. The plaintiff, Elizabeth Wakarii Njiru, opposed the application through her replying affidavit and a further affidavit by her advocate, explaining that she had sought a mention on 16th October 2016 but the court was not sitting, and that she was pursuing substitution of the deceased 1st defendant. The court found it common ground that the suit had last been in court on 14th March 2016. It held, however, that the plaintiff must have known of the 1st defendant's death as far back as 2012 when served with the defence and statements, and was therefore less than candid in claiming she only learnt of the death in March 2016. Nonetheless, applying the Ivita v Kyumbu test and noting that dismissal under Order 17 Rule 2 is discretionary rather than mandatory, and that the defendants had not shown any prejudice, the court declined to dismiss the suit outright. Instead it dismissed the application but imposed conditional orders: the plaintiff was to file and prosecute an application to substitute the 1st defendant and fix pre-trial within three months, pay costs of Ksh. 10,000 within 30 days, failing which the suit would stand dismissed with costs. The ruling was delivered at Kerugoya on 20th December 2017 by B.N. Olao J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2

Holding

The application for dismissal was refused, but conditional orders were imposed requiring the plaintiff to prosecute substitution within three months, failing which the suit stands dismissed with costs

Reasoning

The court accepted the defendants' submission that the plaintiff knew of the 1st defendant's death since 2012 when served with the defence and statements, making her claim to have learnt of it only in March 2016 less than candid. However, applying Ivita v Kyumbu, dismissal is discretionary and the defendants showed no prejudice. Justice delayed is contrary to Article 159(2)(b), so conditional orders balancing these considerations were made.

p. 3
02

Whether the defendants demonstrated prejudice if the suit is not dismissed

Holding

They did not, which weighed against outright dismissal

Reasoning

Beyond pointing to the delay, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants did not demonstrate what prejudice they would suffer if the suit proceeded. Under the Ivita v Kyumbu criteria, the defendant must satisfy the court that justice will not be done due to the prolonged delay before the discretion to dismiss is exercised in his favour. The absence of such proof meant outright dismissal was not warranted.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The test for dismissal for want of prosecution is whether the delay is long and inexcusable and, if so, whether justice can still be done despite the delay
  • Dismissal under Order 17 Rule 2 is discretionary, not mandatory
  • A defendant seeking dismissal for want of prosecution must demonstrate prejudice from the delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 19th May 2017 seeking the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit is dismissed
  2. 2.The plaintiff shall within three (3) months of the ruling file and prosecute an application to substitute the 1st defendant and fix a date for pre-trial before the Deputy Registrar
  3. 3.The plaintiff shall pay to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants costs of the application assessed at Ksh. 10,000 within 30 days of the ruling
  4. 4.In default of any of the above, the suit shall stand dismissed with costs to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Environment and Land Court Act, Section 3

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njiru Kabui v Kamburi Mubuta & 6 others [2017] KEELC 505 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/505/eng@2017-12-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.