Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowed· [2021] KEELC 1989 (KLR)

Kiberenge Lumbas Ngisirei v Midland Construction Company [2021] KEELC 1989 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 September 2021
2,079 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed a land suit because the plaintiff ignored it for nearly two and a half years.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The defendant filed a Notice of Motion dated 22nd January, 2019 under sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 17 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, seeking dismissal of the suit (filed 2nd November, 2016) and a notice of motion dated 1st November, 2016 for want of prosecution. The defendant, through director Divyesh Kotecha, deponed that its memorandum of appearance, defence and grounds of opposition were filed and served on 16th January, 2017, and that the plaintiff had taken no step for over a year thereafter, had lost interest, and that the pendency prejudiced the defendant. The plaintiff opposed through a replying affidavit sworn 28th November, 2019, stating he remained interested in the suit; he attributed the delay to his advanced age and his son, who followed up on the matter, being away on work duties for most of 2019, and sought an opportunity to amend the plaint and file documents. S. M. Kibunja, Judge of the Environment and Land Court, framed three issues: lapse of over one year without a step, the reasonableness of the plaintiff's explanation, and costs. Applying Order 17 Rule 2 and established authorities (Ivita vs Kyumba; Argan Wekesa Okumu; Naftali Opondo Onyango; Mwangi S. Kimenyi; Nilesh Premchand Mulji Shah), the court held the delay of almost two and a half years inordinate and unexplained, noting the plaintiff bore the burden of proof under section 106 of the Evidence Act. The court concluded the plaintiff had lost interest and allowed the application, dismissing the suit and the application of 1st November, 2016 with costs, and ordering the plaintiff to pay the costs of the motion.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether delay of over one year without a step justified dismissal for want of prosecution

Holding

Yes - the delay of almost two and a half years was inordinate and unexplained, showing the plaintiff had lost interest; the suit was dismissed.

Reasoning

Order 17 Rule 2 allows a party to apply for dismissal where no step has been taken for one year. The plaintiff offered only unproven explanations of old age and his son's absence, which covered only 2019 and not 2017-2018. Under section 106 of the Evidence Act he bore the burden of proving those facts. The delay being inordinate, the court concluded the plaintiff had lost interest, and the defendant, having signalled its determination to defend, was entitled to costs under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Whether to dismiss a suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 is a matter within the court's discretion, to be exercised judiciously in the interest of justice.
  • The applicant must show the delay is inordinate, inexcusable and likely to cause prejudice to the defendant.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit commenced through the plaint dated 1st November, 2016 and filed on the 2nd November, 2016 and the notice of motion of even date are dismissed with costs for want of prosecution
  2. 2.The plaintiff to pay the costs of the application dated 22nd January, 2019

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsections 1A, 3A, 27
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 17 Rules 2(1), 2(3)
  • Evidence Act, Chapter 80, Laws of Kenyasection 106
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159

Cases cited (5)

  • Nilesh Premchand Mulji Shah & Another t/a Ketan Emporium v M.D. Popat and Others & Another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Ivita vs Kyumba
    [1984] KLR 441
  • Argan Wekesa Okumu vs Dima College Limited & 2 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Naftali Opondo Onyango –vs– National Bank of Kenya Ltd
    [2005] eKLR
  • Mwangi S. Kimenyi -vs- Attorney General and Another
    Civil Suit Misc. No. 720 of 2009
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 17 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kiberenge Lumbas Ngisirei v Midland Construction Company [2021] KEELC 1989 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1989/eng@2021-09-22

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