Kiama-deceased Joseph Paul Nderitu v Gabriel Gikandi Kiama Alias Nduati Kiama

Clearly there has been inordinate delay. The ruling in question was delivered on 16 th March 2012. It is typed and all the proceedings are typed and are in the court file. There is a letter showing that the proceedings were applied for on 27th March 2012, just a day after the ruling in question. There is nothing to show what prevented the Respondent from collecting the proceedings from the court. For the Respondent to allege that he has been waiting for the proceedings, this to me in incredible. There has been either failure by the applicant to act or a deliberate effort to frustrate implementation of the court orders. A distinction must be made between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides. Inaction or negligence or deliberate failure to act so as to frustrate court orders would deprive a party of the protection of the court. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. No sufficient cause has been demonstrated in this case. When mandatory provisions of the law such as period prescribed for filing an appeal is not complied with and that delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay no matter how sympathetic it may be. The legal principles governing undue delay were established in the Supreme Court decision in Primor plc v Stokes Kennedy Crowley.[1] The Primor principles to guide the court are:(a) Was the delay inordinate? (b) If the delay was inordinate, was it excusable? (c) Even if the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, where does the balance of justice lie? In my view, considering the facts of this case and material presented before me, the delay in filing the appeal is "quite plainly by any standards both inordinate and inexcusable". The situation is characterised by inactivity and an unaccountable failure to file the appeal. This delay, in my view, is "grievous" and "intolerable." As to the balance of justice, "without hesitation" I come to the conclusion that the balance of justice requires that the orders of this court made on 16th March 2012 be implemented. In addition to the above principles,[2] the court handling an application such as the one before me needs to consider the following:a. the length of the delay and whether it was inordinate; b. any reasons for the delay either offered in evidence or inferred from the evidence, including whether the delay was intentional and tactical or whether it was the product of dilatoriness, negligence, impecuniosities, illness or some other relevant cause, the ultimate consideration being whether the delay is excusable in the circumstances; c. whether the delay has caused serious prejudice to the innocent party; d. whether, on balance, justice requires dismissal/allowing the application. I consider the fourth question to encompass the other three and to be the most important and decisive question because at the end of the day, the primary consideration of a court is to do real and substantial justice this being the main reason why courts exist. In Lindholm v. Pollen,[3] Justice Gow wrote these words of wisdom:"The animating principle lying back of any system of administration of justice is that litigation be proceeded with diligence and expedition. This principle is expressed in (the rules of court) that the object of the Rules ... is to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding…. "A just determination can only be attained if an action is tried while the facts are

page 2 of 4

still within the recollection of the witnesses." In Royal Bank of Canada v Jones[4] it was held that "The burden of proof with respect to serious prejudice ... simply put (is that) once the applicant has established that the delay complained of has been inordinate and is inexcusable, a rebuttable presumption of prejudice arises." The leading case for delays of this nature is a British decision of 1969, Allen v. Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons,[5] which sets out a three part test:a. Inordinate delay, b. That this inordinate delay is inexcusable. As a rule, until a credible excuse is made out, the natural inference would be that it is inexcusable; and c. Applicants are likely to be seriously prejudiced by the delay. Applying the principles enumerated above, I find that the Respondents delay in filing their intended appeal is inordinate, inexcusable and prejudicial to the applicant. I hereby allow the application dated 14 th October 2015 and order as follows:a. That the Land Registrar, Nyeri County be and is hereby ordered to immediately remove the restriction, inhibition or caution registered on 21 st April 2008 against title number Kirimukuyu/Kiria/360. b. That Joseph Paul Nderitu be and is hereby ordered to within 14 days from the date of this order, execute all the requisite documents including forms RL 7 and RL 19 and mutation forms or such documents as may be necessary to facilitate the sub-division of Kirimukuyu/Kiria/360 into two equal portions and transfer of the said portions to the beneficiaries in conformity with the grant of letters of administration issued in this cause dated 16 th March 2012 and the Ruling of this court delivered on 16th March 2012. AND further to avail the original title for Kirimukuyu/Kiria/360, certified copies of his national Identity card and income tax pin and pass port size photos or such documents as may be necessary to facilitate the aforesaid process. c. That in default of executing the requisite documents as herein above ordered, the Deputy Registrar of this Honourable court be and is hereby authorized to execute the said documents to facilitate the implementation of the grant of letters of administration issued in this cause dated 16th March 2012 and the Ruling of this court delivered on 16th March 2012. d. That in the event of the said Joseph Paul Nderitu failing to produce the original title as herein above ordered, the Land Registrar Nyeri County is hereby directed to dispense with the said original for purposes of effecting the aforesaid sub-division and registration/transfer as herein above ordered. e. That O.C.S Karatina Police Station be and is hereby directed to provide security to the District Surveyor, Nyeri County or such officers from the Lands office Nyeri when and if required to visit the title number Kirimukuyu/Kiria/360 for purposes of sub-division and or establishing and or creating a common boundary between the two portions to be created pursuant to the implementation of the above court orders. f. That the said Joseph Paul Nderitu be and is hereby ordered to pay the costs of this application. Right of appeal 30 days John M. Mativo Judge [1] {1996} 2 IR 459

page 3 of 4

[2] The relevant principles were summarized and restated in 0690860 Manitoba Ltd. v. Country West Construction Ltd., 2009 BCCA 535 at paras. 27 – 29, [3] [1986] 3 BCLR 2d 23 (BCSC) [4]2000 BCSC 520 [5] [1969] 1 All ER 543

page 4 of 4