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 judgment· [2018] KEELC 575 (KLR)

Ndatho M’nkondi v Mischeck Muriungi Meme & another [2018] KEELC 575 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 November 2018
1,271 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Meru refused to revive a 1989 land suit left inactive for decades, blaming the plaintiff's own inaction.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff applied by notice of motion dated 27.4.2015 for reinstatement of his suit, filed on 9.10.1989, which had been dismissed on 27.3.2014 for want of prosecution following a notice to show cause. He pleaded advanced age (an octogenarian) and argued that the failure to prosecute was his former advocate's mistake, which should not be visited upon him, relying on Mwangi S. Kimenyi and Ivita v Kyumbu. The respondent, who died on 18.2.2016 without substitution, opposed through counsel, contending the applicant had not been keen to prosecute and that sustaining the suit would breed prejudice, citing Utalii Transport, Austin Securities and Naftali Onyango. The court, per Lucy N. Mbugua ELC J, applied Order 17 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the line of authorities on reinstatement, including Alice Mumbi Nganga, Peter Kinyari Kihumba, Simion Waiti Kimani and Fran Investments. It found the suit had lain dormant for 24 years with long periods of inactivity, including seven years immediately preceding dismissal, demonstrating a lack of vigilance that could not be blamed on counsel. Applying the Ivita test, the delay was held prolonged and inexcusable, and revival would prejudice the deceased respondent's family. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent and the file consigned to the archives.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit dismissed for want of prosecution should be reinstated

Holding

Application dismissed; the applicant was not a vigilant litigant and the delay was prolonged and inexcusable

Reasoning

The suit filed in 1989 lay dormant for 24 years with long periods of inactivity, including seven years immediately before its dismissal. The dismissal followed a notice to show cause, not the applicant's activation. Reinstatement is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously; the applicant, though advanced in age, filed the suit when youthful and let it languish. He cannot blame his advocate, and reviving the suit would prejudice the deceased respondent's family.

p. 2
02

Whether the mistake of the applicant's advocate excuses the delay

Holding

No; the litigant must follow up his case and the mistake of counsel does not per se justify reinstatement

Reasoning

Relying on Alice Mumbi Nganga v Danson Chege Nganga, the court held that a litigant must follow up his case and cannot blame his advocate when an adverse decision results from the advocate's lack of diligence; the remedy lies in suing the advocate for professional negligence. The record of prolonged dormancy showed the applicant himself was not vigilant.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Reinstatement of a suit dismissed for want of prosecution is a discretionary exercise; the delay must be explained and a party cannot blame his advocate for lack of diligence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 27.4.2015 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
  2. 2.The file to be taken to the archives
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under Order 17 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ndatho M’nkondi v Mischeck Muriungi Meme & another [2018] KEELC 575 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/575/eng@2018-11-28

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