Robert Ndegwa Muruthu & 3 Others v Major,Town Clerk Nyahururu Municipal Council & 3 Others [2014] KEHC 23 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA  AT  NAKURU

PETITION NO. 8 OF  2012

ROBERT  NDEGWA MURUTHU & 3 OTHERS............... PETITIONERS

VERSUS

MAJOR,TOWN CLERK

NYAHURURU MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & 3 OTHERS.....RESPONDENTS

RULING

1.  This is the 1st  respondent's Notice of Motion dated 28th  January, 2014 seeking;

(i) That the Honourable Court be  pleased to issue an order for dismissal of  this suit against the applicant for  want of  prosecution.

(ii) That   the    Petitioner  be prohibited from continued prosecution  of   the suit  against the applicant.

iii)  That the costs  of   this  application be   provided for.

2.  The Application is expressed to be brought under Order 17 Rule 2(3)  and  Order  51 Rule   1of the Civil  Procedure Rules, 2010.

3.  The application is premised on the grounds on the face of the application and is anchored on  a supporting affidavit deponed by  Lawrence Macharia Karanja, an advocate  of the High Court who has conduct of the matter on  behalf of the 1st respondent.

4.  The   1st  respondent set out their case as follows; that the Petitioner/  respondent instituted  his Petition on 9th March, 2012; that the   functions of  the office   of  the applicant  have abated and have been taken over  by  the County Government of  Laikipia; that the  Petitioner has not taken  any steps  to adjust his Petition accordingly; that the respondent has not prosecuted his petition for  one year, thus he  has lost interest in  his Petition; that there having been no  activity on  the court file  since 27th July, 2012 and the delay being unjustifiable, the Petition should be  dismissed for  want of prosecution.

5.   An   affidavit of  service was  sworn  by   Julius  Kamotho Njaga, a court process server on 7th July, 2014 in which he depones that he served the Petitioner's Counsel Kangethe & Co.   Advocates with  the   Notice  of motion which had  a hearing  date  for   the  application  and  they  acknowledged service on  13th February, 2014.

6.   Despite service, the  Petitioner did not  respond  to  the application  nor attend court  for  the  hearing of  the application. Mr Kirui, Counsel for the 3rd and 4th respondents did not oppose the application when the same came up for hearing. He chose to associate himself with the sentiments expressed by Counsel for  the applicant and urged the court to allow the application as prayed.

7.   I   have  perused  the  court  record  and  considered  the application  and  affidavit by  Counsel for   the 1st  defendant. I take the following views on the matter.

8.  The suit  before me has  been filed as a Constitutional Petition not as a normal Civil  suit but the instant application has  been filed   under  the  Civil   Procedure  Rules.  The  Civil procedure  Act   and  Rules  do not  apply in  Constitutional Petitions. As Counsel is fully aware, Constitutional  Petitions have their own   procedure laid   down in   the  Mutunga rules. Counsel for  the applicant should have moved the court under the Constitution of Kenya and the Mutunga rules. Although there is no express provision in  these rules addressing circumstances  under which a Constitutional Petition can be struck out and/  or  dismissed  and how, there is nothing in the Mutunga Rules that  bars  the  court from preventing the abuse of process.

Rule 3(8) of  the Mutunga Rulesas the Rules are popularly known provides,

"Nothing  in   these  rules  shall  limit  or   otherwise affect the   inherent  power of  the Court to make such orders as  may be  necessary for  the ends of justice  or to prevent abuse of  the process of  the court"

9. The application is not opposed, but I find 1 must address the issue  on   whether   the  application  is  fatally  defective because it cites the wrong provisions of the Law.  In  my  view, merely citing a wrong section or  moving the court under the wrong procedural  Rules  is  not  fatal  to   an  application.  In addition Article 159(2) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya 20 10, enjoins courts to administer justice without undue  regard to technicalities.  In  my view, so   long  as  the  body  of   the application and  the  prayers  ra1se an  actionable issue,  the Court can  and  should  adjudicate  on   the matter.  After all, wrong pleadings can still  be  amended  in  the   course  of proceedings. For  the reasons given above, I find that the application  herein  is  not  fatally  defective and  1 will   now proceed to  determine it on  its merits.

10.  The decision whether or not  to dismiss a suit  is purely discretionary.   However, like   any other discretion the same must be  based on   reason and  should  neither  be   based  on sympathy nor  exercised  capriciously  .

In  the case of Sheikh Vrs  Gupta and others,  Nairobi HCCC No. 916 of 1960 ( 1969) E.A Trevelyan, J  stated  as follows:

"..................in  deciding whether  or not  to dismiss  a suit under  order 6,  a court  will be  slow to make an order  if it   is   satisfied that the hearing of the suit  can  proceed  without   further delay that the  defendant will suffer no hardship  or  that  there  has  been flagrant and  culpable  inactivity  on  the part  of the  plaintiff''

11. In this case, the Petitioner filed his Petition against the four respondents on 9th March, 2012  contemporaneously with an application seeking conservatory Orders. Before the interlocutory application could be set down for hearing, the applicant filed the instant application for dismissal of  the Petition for  want of prosecution.

12.  According to   the  Court  record, in the year 2013  the Petitioner  took  several  mention  dates  in  the  registry.  A mention date was taken on  16th  January, 2013  for  mention on  21st   February, 2013  but  the file  was  not  placed  before court.  They took another date on 15th  February, 2013  for 19th  April, 2013.  On  that date, the Petitioner's Counsel and the 3rd and 4th  respondents Counsel were present but the matter did   not proceed and the parties were directed to  take a date in the  registry. On 5th  May, 2013   the Petitioner's Counsel again took a mention date for  19th  July,  2013.  On that date, only Counsel for the Petitioner was    present in court. He sought a hearing date for the Petition but the court directed that he   takes the date in   the registry. The instant application was thereafter   filed   on 6th  February, 2014 and set down for  hearing on  8th July, 2014.

13. It is true to  say that the courts should be  slow to  dismiss a suit for want of prosecution if the suit can be  heard without any  further delay,  if   the  defendant  will  not  suffer  any hardship and if  there has been no  flagrant and  culpable in activity. In the instant case, it is evident from the record that Petitioner's Counsel has been very active in trying to fix this matter for  hearing and it cannot be  said that the petitioner has lost interest in  the suit. It would be unfair to dismiss the suit at this stage without giving the Petitioner a last chance to set down the matter for hearing.

14. On  the issue raised that the functions of the office  of the applicant have abated and the functions taken over   by  the County Government of  Laikipia and that  the  Petitioner has not taken any steps to  adjust  his petition accordingly, it  is my   view   as  observed earlier,  that  wrong pleadings can  be amended so  long as the body of the Petition and the prayers are  actionable. In that  regard I direct  that  the  Petitioner amends   his  petition  to reflect  the correct  party as 1st Defendant and set down this matter for hearing  within 60 days from the  date hereof.

15. The upshot  of  the foregoing is  that the Notice of  Motion dated  28th  January, 2014  is   dismissed  with  no   orders  on costs as the Petitioner did  defend the application.

Dated, signed and delivered this 7th  Day of November 2014

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE

PRESENT

Mr Kirui  for the 3rd and 4th Respondent

Mr Kibet for the 1st   Respondent/ Applicant

N/A for the 2nd  Respondent

N/A for the  Petitioner

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE