Ithau & 3 others v Nandlal and Company Limited & 4 others; Action Tam of South C Ward Association & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 147 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 13599 (KLR) (3 December 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 13599 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI ENVIRONMENT & LAND CASE 147 OF 2017 LN MBUGUA, J DECEMBER 3, 2024 BETWEEN PHOEBE MUENI ITHAU .................................................................... 1ST PLAINTIFF NARA HOLDINGS LTD .................................................................... 2ND PLAINTIFF MOLLY KIRAGU (SUING AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL KARAGU MUCHIKI) ........................................................ 3RD PLAINTIFF MWANGI STEPHEN MUREITHI ..................................................... 4TH PLAINTIFF AND NANDLAL AND COMPANY LIMITED ....................................... 1ST DEFENDANT NAIROBI CITY COUNTY ............................................................. 2ND DEFENDANT NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION .............................................. 3RD DEFENDANT THE HON ATTORNEY GENERAL .............................................. 4TH DEFENDANT CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR ........................................................... 5TH DEFENDANT AND ACTION TAM OF SOUTH C WARD ASSOCIATION ....... INTERESTED PARTY KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY ........................................ INTERESTED PARTY RULING 1. Before me is the 2nd and 4th Plainti’s Notice of Motion Application dated 8.12.2023 seeking orders for the reinstatement of the suit which was dismissed on 16.11.2023 for want of prosecution. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of the application and the supporting adavit of https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/13599/eng@2024-12-03 1
page 1 of 2
Muyuka Mercy, the advocate applicants. She contends that when the matter came up for hearing on 16.11.2023, she indicated that she was not ready to proceed with the hearing as there was a pending application by the 1st plainti dated 23.10.2023 for substitution of the 1st plainti who was deceased. She contends that they are keen on prosecuting this matter. 2. In opposition thereof, the 1st defendant led a Replying Adavit dated 7.5.2024 sworn by its director, one Vinay Sanghrajka where he avers that the advocates for the applicants had appeared before the court on 9.10.2023 when they withdrew their application to cease acting averring that they were in touch with their clients. Thus the advocate for the applicants had sucient time to appraise their clients regarding the hearing date of 16.11.2023. It is further argued that the application is frivolous and vexatious and should therefore be dismissed. 3. I have considered all the arguments raised herein. The overriding objective of our constitutional and statutory framework on civil procedure is to achieve substantive justice to the litigants, See Gold Lida Limited vs NIC Bank Ltd & 2 other [2018] eKLR. In the case of Mwangi S. Kimenyi vs Attorney General and Another [2014] eKLR the court stated that; “ The decision whether a suit should be re-instated for trial is a matter of justice and it depends on the facts of the case.” 4. Considering that one of the plaintis (the rst one) was deceased, and there was a pending application for his substitution as at the time the suit was dismissed, then I nd that the applicants have proered sucient cause to warrant a review of the orders of November 16, 2023 for their case to be reinstated. Thus the application dated December 8, 2023 is hereby allowed but with costs to the 1st defendant. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 3th DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS. LUCY N. MBUGUA JUDGE In the presence of: Muyuka for Plainti Vanessa holding brief for Elijah for 1st Defendant Court Assistant: Vena https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/13599/eng@2024-12-03 2
page 2 of 2