Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2020] KEELC 2180 (KLR)

Sophie Feis Lwangu v John Njenga & 4 others [2020] KEELC 2180 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 May 2020
MNMwangi Njoroge
448 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Kitale Environment and Land Court dismissed a landowner's bid to revive her lawsuit because she failed to file written submissions as the court had directed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kitale (Mwangi Njoroge, J) on the plaintiff's application dated 21/3/2019, brought under Order 51 Rules 1, 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking reinstatement of her suit and setting aside of a bill of costs taxed on 13/9/2018. The underlying suit had been dismissed with costs to the defendants on 28/2/2018 for want of prosecution. The applicant argued that her erstwhile advocates, David Ingosi & Company, ceased acting without her knowledge and that she only learned of the dismissal after the fact; she had appointed new advocates willing to prosecute the suit, and her land was at risk of being lost to the defendants. The defendants, through the replying affidavit of John Njenga sworn on 25/4/2019, opposed the application, contending that the suit, filed in May 2014, had never been prosecuted after the interim injunction lapsed, that neither the plaintiff nor her advocate attended court when the suit was dismissed or when the notice to show cause was served, and that the delay in seeking reinstatement was inordinate and unexplained. On 25/4/2019 the court directed the parties to file written submissions. The defendants filed submissions on 11/6/2019, but the court found no submissions on record from the plaintiff. Holding that written submissions were the only ordered mode of disposal, the court found that the applicant had failed to prosecute her application and dismissed it with costs for want of prosecution. The ruling was delivered at Nairobi via teleconference on 14 May 2020, with neither party's counsel appearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the reinstatement application was prosecuted

Holding

The court held that the application was not prosecuted because the applicant, who was directed to file written submissions as the only ordered mode of disposal, filed none, and the application was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution with costs

Reasoning

The court had ordered the parties on 25/4/2019 to file written submissions as the only manner of disposal of the application. The defendants filed their submissions on 11/6/2019, but an examination of the entire court record revealed no submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Given that no other mode of disposal had been ordered, the applicant's failure to file submissions amounted to a failure to prosecute the application, warranting dismissal with costs for want of prosecution.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A party ordered to file written submissions as the sole mode of disposal of an application who fails to do so is taken to have failed to prosecute the application, which may be dismissed for want of prosecution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 21/3/2019 seeking reinstatement of the suit and setting aside of the bill of costs taxed on 13/9/2018 is dismissed for want of prosecution
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the defendants/respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 51 Rules 1, 3 and 4
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 51 Rules 1, 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sophie Feis Lwangu v John Njenga & 4 others [2020] KEELC 2180 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2180/eng@2020-05-14

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