Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC No. 651 of 2013 (originally HCCC No. 168/2003, later HCCC No. 75 of 2005)· [2019] KEELC 4347 (KLR)

Elizabeth Wangechi Mwai Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Peter Mwai Mburati (Deceased) & Jamleck Mwangi Njoka & 3 others [2019] KEELC 4347 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 February 2019
1,255 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

#

A Kenyan court confirmed that a suit dismissed for want of prosecution can only be revived through an appeal, not by asking the same judge to set the dismissal aside.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff in ELC No. 651 of 2013 (originally filed in 2003 as HCCC No. 168/2003 in Nairobi, transferred to Embu and then to Kerugoya) applied by Notice of Motion dated 27th July 2018 to set aside an order of 25th July 2018 dismissing the suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) CPR. The applicant explained that since April 2018 she had pursued interlocutory steps, including an application filed on 17th July 2018 to amend the pleading and enjoin Beatrice Muriithi, relating to substitution of parties after land in the estate had been sold by fraudsters impersonating the deceased. She also cited the part-heard status and potential compensation repayment to the National Irrigation Board. The 1st defendant opposed, noting the suit had never been prosecuted since 2003 and that the plaintiff failed to appear on 25th July 2018; the 3rd defendant filed grounds of opposition. The court traced the procedural history: a notice to show cause was issued on 28th June 2018; on 23rd July 2018 the plaintiff's explanation was found insufficient and the matter adjourned to 25th July 2018, when plaintiff's counsel was absent and the holding-brief advocate knew nothing of the file, prompting dismissal. The court held that Order 17 Rule 2(2) CPR, invoked by the applicant, is not available for setting aside a dismissal under Rule 2(1), and that the proper course is the Notice of Appeal already filed on 7th August 2018, setting aside and appeal being mutually exclusive. The application was dismissed as lacking merit, incompetent and an abuse of court process, with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Availability of Order 17 Rule 2(2) CPR to set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution

Holding

The application lacks merit and is incompetent; the applicant should have appealed via the Notice of Appeal filed on 7th August 2018

Reasoning

Order 17 Rule 2(1) permits the court to dismiss a suit where no step has been taken for one year after notice. Rule 2(2) governs orders where cause IS shown to the court's satisfaction, not restoration after dismissal. Having failed to show sufficient cause on 23rd and 25th July 2018, the plaintiff's dismissal could only be challenged on appeal, and setting aside and appeal are mutually exclusive remedies.

p. 2
02

Whether the plaintiff showed sufficient cause for failing to prosecute

Holding

No; the plaintiff was given an opportunity to explain the delay but failed to provide satisfactory reasons, and counsel did not attend on 25th July 2018

Reasoning

The suit, filed in 2003, had lain dormant. On the notice to show cause date of 23rd July 2018 the explanation of a pending application was insufficient; the court adjourned to 25th July 2018 to allow better reasons, but plaintiff's counsel was absent and the holding-brief advocate knew nothing of the file. The court therefore did 'the inevitable' and dismissed the suit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A dismissal order under Order 17 Rule 2(1) CPR cannot be set aside under Order 17 Rule 2(2) CPR; the remedy is an appeal
  • An application to set aside a dismissal and a Notice of Appeal are mutually exclusive remedies that cannot be pursued together

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 27th July 2018 is dismissed as lacking merit, incompetent and an abuse of the court process
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 17 Rule 2(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 17 Rule 2(2)
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 17 Rule 2(2) Civil Procedure Rules (invoked by applicant)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Elizabeth Wangechi Mwai Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Peter Mwai Mburati (Deceased) & Jamleck Mwangi Njoka & 3 others [2019] KEELC 4347 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC No. 651 of 2013 (originally HCCC No. 168/2003, later HCCC No. 75 of 2005). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4347/eng@2019-02-15

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