VIHIGA FARMERS CO. LTD v MUSA AZENGA & 27 Others [2011] KEHC 2903 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT KAKAMEGA

CIVIL SUIT NO.400 OF 1992

VIHIGA FARMERS CO. LTD. ........................................ PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

V E R S U S

MUSA AZENGA ................................................................................ 1ST  DEFENDANT

PHILIP MUSASIA ................................................................................. 2ND DEFENDANT

JETHRO MUTUKA ................................................................................ 3RD DEFENDANT

SOLOMON OKOTO .............................................................................. 4TH DEFENDANT

BOAZ LITIEMA ....................................................................................... 5TH DEFENDANT

WYCLIFFE MULAMA SABATIA ........................................................... 6TH DEFENDANT

JOSIA SITAKWA MWANI .................................................................... 7TH DEFENDANT

NATHAN INDOMBELO ICHECHI .................................... 8TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

ESTHER IRAGOSA BUSAKA ................................................................ 9TH DEFENDANT

BWONN ASIELE MIYA ......................................................................... 10TH DEFENDANT

JEREMIAH LUMWACHI ASMAI ........................................................... 11TH DEFENDANT

ALPHONCE AWUONDA ....................................................................... 12TH DEFENDANT

SIMON ALUMANDE .............................................................................. 13TH DEFENDANT

BILISILA UNDEA IJAIKA ...................................................................... 14TH DEFENDANT

JAMES ASIEMA...................................................................................... 15TH DEFENDANT

JAMES ALUSA ....................................................................................... 16TH DEFENDANT

JOYCE MIDEVA ANGALIKA .................................................................. 17TH DEFENDANT

DANIEL ISAGI .......................................................................................... 18TH DEFENDANT

JIMMY MATIA BANDI ............................................................................. 19TH DEFENDANT

CHRISTOPHER SOME ........................................................................... 20TH DEFENDANT

MICHAEL ANGALIKA .............................................................................. 21ST DEFENDANT

TIMOTHY MAJANGA .............................................................................. 22ND DEFENDANT

LUKA LUDENYO ...................................................................................... 23RD DEFENDANT

ELLY KAMADI OLOCHO ........................................................................ 24TH DEFENDANT

LIVINGSTONE O. WASUSU ................................................................... 25TH DEFENDANT

JAVAN SAVATIA ...................................................................................... 26TH DEFENDANT

TIMOTHY INGOSI ..................................................................................... 27TH DEFENDANT

EZEKIEL JAKA .......................................................................................... 28TH DEFENDANT

R U L I N G

1. The Application dated 18. 1.2010 is premised on the provisions of Order XVI Rule 5 and Order VI Rule 13(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules. In it, the 8th Defendant, Nathan Indombele Ichechi, seeks orders that the suit against him be dismissed with costs. In the alternative, that the suit be struck out with costs for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

2. In his Affidavit sworn on 18. 1.2010, the Applicant depones that in the suit, the Plaintiff is challenging his registration as proprietor of land parcel no. Lugari/Likuyani/178. That his land parcel is not the same but it is land parcel no. Lugari/Likuyani Block 1/Vihiga/178 and in any event, the Plaintiff has taken more than five years before taking any step to set down the suit for hearing and yet litigation must come to an end. A copy of the title for his parcel of land is annexed to his Affidavit and it is sought that the suit be dismissed for want of prosecution or for not disclosing a cause of action.

3. The plaintiff’s response is set out in the grounds of opposition dated 7. 2.2010 and they are as follows;

(a)That the application is misconceived

(b)That a similar application, seeking same orders is pending

(c)The application has been served upon a firm not on record

(d)That this case was in court on 13. 10. 08 and pending application set for 18. 1.2010

(e)That some of the defendants are dead, and some have been filing applications, one after the other

(f)That the averments in the supporting affidavit are false and meant to mislead this court.

(g)The application lacks merit.”

4. To my mind, the matter is simpl;, there is no response to the matters set out in the Application and the matters set out in the grounds of opposition are not an answer to the issue whether the Plaintiff has been indolent or not.

5. In any event, although the suit herein was filed on 16. 12. 1992, it has never proceeded to trial and the Plaintiff has chosen not to give reasons why that is the case. It filed the suit and must show what steps it has taken to have it finalized. It has chosen not to do so and must suffer the consequences of inaction.

6. Order XVI Rule 5 provides as follows;

“5– If, within three months after-

(a)The close of leadings; or

(b)(Deleted by L.N. 36/00)

(c)the removal of the suit from the hearing list; or

(d)the adjournment of the suit generally, the plaintiff, or the court of its own motion on notice to the parties, does not set down the suit for hearing, the defendant may either set the suit down for hearing or apply for its dismissal.”

7. The suit herein was last listed for hearing on 13. 12. 2005 and although parties spent time on interlocutory matters over the years, no reason has been advocated why it could not go to trial and so the Application is merited with the consequence that the suit herein is struck off as against the 8th Defendant only. He shall be paid the costs thereof.

8. Orders accordingly.

Delivered, dated and signed at Kakamega this 14th day of April, 2011

ISAAC LENAOLA

J U D G E