Monze Kiroto v David Musyoki Kilonzo [2019] KEELC 4156 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THEENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT

AT GARISSA

ELC  CASE NO. 62 OF 2017

MONZE KIROTO..................................APPELLANT

VERSUS

DAVID MUSYOKI KILONZO..........RESPONDENT

RULING

A. INTRODUCTION

The   applicant   filed the   Notice of  Motion  Application  dated  4th  October, 2018  and  filed  on  even  date  seeking  for  Orders;

1. THAT  the Honourable Court be  pleased  to  certify   this  matter  as  urgent,  service  thereof  be  dispensed  with  and  the  same be  heard  ex-parte   in  the first  instance.

2. THAT this Honourable Court  be  pleased  to stay  its  orders made  on 25th  September, 2018   pending  the  hearing   and  determination  of  the  Application.

3. THAT this Honourable  Court  be  pleased  to review  and/or  set  aside  orders  of   25th  September, 2018  dismissing  the  main  suit  for  want  of  prosecution,  and  any  consequential  orders  thereto.

4. THAT  the Honourable   Court be  pleased  to  reinstate  the  suit  dated  18th  September, 2017  for  determination  on  merit.

5. THAT  costs be provided  for;

The  Respondent in response to  the   Application  filed  the  Replying  Affidavit  dated  21st  November, 2018  and  filed  on  22nd  November, 2018.

B.  BACKGROUND

APPLICANTS CASE

The   Plaintiff/ Applicant filed the  Instant  suit  seeking  the reinstatement  of  the  suit  after  the  court  dismissed    it  for  Want  of  Prosecution  on  25th  September, 2018  when  the  same   came  up  for  hearing.

The plaintiff  had  filed  an  application  on 24th  September, 2018  a day  to  the hearing  slated   for 25th  September, 2018  in  which  they  sought   the  orders  that  the  matter  be  transferred  to  the  Magistrate’s  court  at  Kyuso.  This they  allege  was  after  the  Chief  Justice  gazetted  the  Senior  Principal   Magistrate’s  court  to deal  with  Land  and  Environment  matters.

It is their  case  that  the  Plaintiff  herein  failed  to  attend  to the  hearing  of  the matter  because  she  was unwell  and had been advised  to take  a bed  rest.

In sum they argue that  the  non  -attendance  on  the   date  of   hearing  was  not ill -conceived  and  was  excusable.

They deny the Defendant/ Respondent allegation that the suit was dismissed  for  non-production  of  evidence.

C.  RESPONDENT’S CASE

The  Respondent  oppose  the  Application  arguing  that  the  same  lacks  merit  for  the  reasons  that  both  parties  attended   a  pre- trial  for  the  matter  on  26th   July, 2018  where  both  complied  with  the  requirements of   Order 11,  implying  that  there  was an  agreement  that  the  Court  had  the  jurisdiction  to  handle  the  matter  and  that  it  was  on  that  basis  that  parties   fixed  the  matter  for  hearing  on  25th  September, 2018.

In addition, they  argue  that  the  application  filed  on  24th November, 2018  was  an  afterthought  meant  to derail  the  hearing  of  the  matter  slated  for  25th  September, 2018.    They argue  that  the  issue  of jurisdiction  and  transfer  of  the  matter  should  have been raised   at  the  earliest  opportunity  being  during  the  Confirmation  for  hearing.

Further, the  respondent  argues  that the  allegation  by  the  applicant  that  she  was  sick  on  the date  for  the  hearing  were  raised  in  the  instant application, and   that  the  court  was  not  informed  of  the  same  during  the  hearing  date, thus the same is an afterthought.

Furthermore,  they  argue  that  the  Applicant  has  never  been  keen to  Prosecute  his case  because  he  enjoys  interim orders  and  that  granting  the  sought  orders  would  prejudice  him.

In  sum  the  Respondents  prays  that  the  application  be  dismissed  with  costs  as it  lacks  merit.

SUBMISSIONS.

The   Applicants filed their submissions dated 25th January, 2019 and filed  on 28th  January, 2019  reiterating  their  grounds  in  support  of  the  application  are meritorious.  On this they rely on Order 12 Rule  7  of   The  Civil  Procedure  Rules,  2010  and  Section  1 A  and  3A  of  The  Civil  Procedure  Act.

It is their  argument  at  the  time  of  filing  the  suit  this  court’s   had  the  jurisdiction  to determine  the  matter  as  the  magistrate’s  court  at  Kyuso  did  not  have  the  jurisdiction  to determine  Land  and  Environment  matters.

Pursuant   to the Court  of  Appeal  decision  in  Law   Society  of  Kenya  Nairobi  Branch  -vs-   Malindi  Law  Society  &  6  others  (2017)  eKLR  the  magistrate’s   court  were  granted  powers  to handle  land  matters,  and  in  view  of  this  developments  and  filed  their  applications  on 24th  September,  seeking  to   transfer  the   matter  to  the  magistrate’s  court  at  Kyuso.

Further, they  argue  that  the  decision  and  directions  to  file  the  Application  seeking  to  transfer  the  matter   was  informed  by  the  Applicants  old  age  and  frail  health.

Furthermore,  they  argue  that  the  Applicant  failed to  attend  the  hearing  on 25th  September, 2018  because  she  was  unwell  and  was  advised  to  seek  a bed  rest.

They deny  the  allegation  by  the  Respondent  that  the  matter  was dismissed  for  lack  of  evidence.

In  sum they  argue  that  the  application  failure  to  attend  the  hearing  of  the  matter  was  not  ill  conceived  and  is  excusable.

ISSUES ARISING

Whether the Application for reinstatement is merited;

The applicant seeks through the instant application to have this Court reinstate her suit which was dismissed by this Court for want of Prosecution. The applicant argues that on the day of hearing she was absent in court because she was unwell, frail and old and therefore unable to proceed with the matter, and that she had filed an application to have the matter transferred to Kyuso Senior Resident Magistrate Court where she would be able to prosecute the matter as the said Courts has since acquired jurisdiction to adjudicate on land matters.

It is clear from the Court record that the applicant prior to the dismissal of the matter on 25th September, 2018 has been enjoying interim orders, and that on 26th July, 2018 both parties attended the Pre-trial conference when the matter was fixed for hearing on 25th September, 2018.

On 25th September, 2018 when the matter came up for hearing, Advocate Holding brief for the Plaintiff informed the Court that they had filed an application on 24th September, 2018 seeking to have the matter transferred to Khuso Law Courts, which Court has since acquired Jurisdiction. The application seeking adjournment in view of the said application was opposed by the defendant Advocate, wherein the Court declined the sought adjournment and fixed the matter for hearing at 10. 30 am on 25th September, 2018.

When the matter came up for hearing at 10. 30 am, only the defendant’s Advocate was present in Court and the court was implored to dismiss the matter and this Court consequently dismissed the suit for want of prosecution

Counsel for the applicant has contended that sufficient cause has been shown as to why the suit should be reinstated. They argue that the Plaintiff is aged as she is 70 years old and was sick on 25th September, 2018 when the matter was fixed for hearing. In that same spirit, he also pointed out that they filed an application on 24th September, 2018 seeking to transfer the matter to kyuso Law Courts as the Senior Resident Magistrate there has Jurisdiction adjudicate the matter, which Jurisdiction lacked initially.

However, from the record, the issue of sickness of the Plaintiff on 25th September, 2018 when the matter came for hearing was never raised at trial. If anything, at the time, what counsel Holding Brief contended then was that the Plaintiff had filed an Application dated 24th September, 2018 seeking to have the matter transferred to Kyuso Magistrate Court which has since acquired Jurisdiction to handle the matter. As stated, no mention was ever made of the sickness and the age of the plaintiff making it difficult for her to attend the matter. That argument in my opinion therefore does not hold any water and in my view it cannot rescue this suit.

The Court of Appeal in Charo Thali Ngala v Republic & 4 others [2018] eKLRnoted in this regard that:-

“17] …that there is no law or procedure that precluded the Judge from applying the provisions of Order 17 rule 2 to dismiss judicial review proceedings for want of prosecution and the appellant failed to give justifiable reasons for their indolence in prosecuting the suit, we cannot say the Judge was wrong in the way he exercised his discretion.  Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs to the 5th respondent.”

Consequently, this Court finds that the applicant has failed to give a justifiable reason explaining their indolence in prosecuting their case. The reasons proffered amounts to an afterthought; their conduct can be interpreted to imply a party who is keen on delaying the expeditious determination of the matter.

ENDING

It is conclusive to this court that the Plaintiff and her advocate have not been interested in prosecuting the suit since it was filed in the year 2017, this is in view of the urgency in which they approached the Court and the fact that they have been enjoying interim orders.   The reason advanced by the Plaintiff is not plausible at all, and therefore this court is not convinced with the grounds in support of this application and dismisses the same with costs. It is so ordered.

Read and delivered in the Open Court this 25th day of March, 2019.

……………………

E. C Cherono (Mr.)

ELC JUDGE

In the presence of:

1. Applicant/Advocate: Absent

2. Respondent Advocate: Absent

3. Amina Mohamed: Court clerk present.