Taabu v Thuita & another (Civil Case 304 of 1996) [2025] KEHC 13278 (KLR) (Civ) (31 July 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 13278 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CIVIL CIVIL CASE 304 OF 1996 SIFUNA NIXON, J JULY 31, 2025 BETWEEN DALMAS TAABU ....................................................................................... PLAINTIFF AND BETH WANJIRA THUITA ............................................................. 1ST DEFENDANT JACQUELINE SABAYANI .............................................................. 2ND DEFENDANT RULING 1. This ruling is on the Plaintiff’s Application dated 27th January 2025. It seeks to re-instate this suit. The suit was dismissed on 18th November 2024, by Meoli J. The grounds of the Application are stated in the Application, and in its Supporting Affidavit. The Application is unopposed, as the Respondent never filed any Response, despite service. Determination 2. The mere fact that an Application (as in this case) is unopposed or that the Respondent has not filed any response to it, does not mean the Application should be mechanically allowed as a formality. Even where there is no opposition, the court still needs to consider the legal sufficiency of the grounds advanced, as well as determine whether the Application has met the legal threshold for an Application of that nature. It is on that basis that the court should determine whether to allow the Application or dismiss it. 3. I have considered the Application (as unopposed as it is), its Supporting Affidavit, as well as the grounds in it and the submissions by counsel. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/13278/eng@2025-07-31 1
page 1 of 2
4. Suits need to be determined on their merits; and on an Application for reinstatement of a dismissed suit, even the mere demonstration by the Plaintiff, of interest in prosecuting the suit, is a key consideration. There is also the overriding constitutional imperative to be heard. 5. As for this case however, the Application was brought, two months after the dismissal order; and which delay, the Plaintiff has not satisfactorily explained. At the time of its dismissal, this suit was a very old one. It was dismissed after being in court for twenty-eight (28) years! From the year 1996 when it was filed, to the year 2024 when it was dismissed. From the court record, the Plaintiff’s indolence over the years the suit was in court, was so glaring and enduring. 6. For the reason of that indolence, the very old age of the suit, and the fact that the delay in bringing the Application has not been satisfactorily explained, the Plaintiff’s plea for this suit’s re-instatement, is hereby politely declined. Hence this Application is hereby dismissed, with costs. Litigation cannot go on unceasingly and indefinitely. It has come to an end, in one way or another. That dismissal is such ending. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025. PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/13278/eng@2025-07-31 2
page 2 of 2