Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 11th March 2016 (elc suit, Nakuru)· [2018] KEELC 2763 (KLR)

Ndibithi Farmers Co Limited v Mwana Mwireri Rironi & another [2018] KEELC 2763 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 June 2018
1,588 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 reinstate a land suit dismissed for delay, because the plaintiff could not prove it never received the dismissal notice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff moved by Notice of Motion dated 11th March 2016 seeking to set aside orders of 7th July 2015 dismissing its suit for want of prosecution and to have the suit reinstated. The application was supported by an affidavit of Charles Kimani Ngethe, a director, who deponed that the plaintiff only learned of the dismissal on 4th March 2016 and that its advocates were never served with the Notice to Show Cause. The defendant opposed through the affidavit of its chairlady, Naomi Wangui Wambugu, citing the plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order of 18th September 2014. The court noted that a Notice to Show Cause had issued on 30th June 2015 under Order 17 Rule 2 and was addressed to the plaintiff's advocates at the address of service. Since the advocates themselves swore no affidavit denying service, the court found service effected. It further observed that pursuant to Emukule J's ruling of 18th September 2014, the suit was to be set down within 12 months or stand dismissed, and that apart from a change of advocates, a reply to defence and the present application, the plaintiff took no step. Given the prior finding that the plaintiff acted in bad faith and abused the court process by keeping the defendant in litigation, the court held that exercising discretion in the plaintiff's favour would amount to a gross failure to do justice. The application was dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Service of the Notice to Show Cause

Holding

Service was effected on the plaintiff's advocates at their address of service

Reasoning

The Notice was addressed to M/s Kaka Kamau & Co. Advocates on record for the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff's director deposed that the advocates were not served, the advocates themselves swore no affidavit denying service. The court therefore found ample evidence of service at the provided address of service and held service effected.

p. 2
02

Whether discretion to set aside should be exercised in the plaintiff's favour

Holding

No; the plaintiff's inaction and prior conduct of abusing court process disentitled it to the discretion

Reasoning

The court applied the Mbogoh v Shah principles as restated in James Kanyiita Nderitu. It weighed the plaintiff's failure to comply with the order of 18th September 2014 requiring the suit to be set down within 12 months, the absence of any extra effort to prepare the suit, and the earlier finding by Emukule J that the plaintiff intended to abuse the court process. Exercising discretion for the plaintiff would be a gross failure of justice between the parties.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • In the absence of an affidavit sworn by the advocates specifically denying service, service at the address of service will be presumed effected
  • Discretion to set aside dismissal should not be exercised to assist a party abusing the court's process

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 11th March 2016 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 10 rule 11
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 17 Rule 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11

Cases cited (5)

  • Mbogoh & Another v. Shah
    [1968] EA 93
  • James Kanyiita Nderitu & another v Marios Philotas Ghikas & another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Patel v. E.A. Cargo Handling Services Ltd
    (1975) EA 75
  • Chemwolo & Another v. Kubende
    [1986] KLR 492
  • CMC Holdings v. Nzioki
    [2004] 1 KLR 173
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion of the court under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside dismissal for want of prosecution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ndibithi Farmers Co Limited v Mwana Mwireri Rironi & another [2018] KEELC 2763 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Notice of Motion dated 11th March 2016 (elc suit, Nakuru). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2763/eng@2018-06-19

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