9
The High Court has been urged to review and reinstate its decision it took against Mbo-I-Kamiti Farmers Company Ltd in which the suit was dismissed on grounds for want of prosecution and non attendance on the part of the plaintiff.
The matter involves about 11,000 acres of prime land in Kiambu County and has been pending in court for a decade and it has never proceeded for hearing prompting the court dismissing the case on July 3, 2024, for want of prosecutions since the plaintiffs did not appear in court.
Appearing virtually at Milimani High Court, Justice Visram Aleem Alnashir admitted to having the application heard as prayed by the advocates who came on record for the plaintiffs claiming that the counsel encountered the technical problem during the mention of the matter virtually in July last year when it was dismissed.
“Counsel for the applicant experienced technical challenges with his gadget due to internet fluctuation immediately when the matter was called prompting his call to drop.” Read part of the affidavit.
The court heard that when the counsel regained internet connectivity, he learnt that the case had been dismissed for his non appearance after seeking audience from the judge after the counsel list call was over.
The applicant were seeking reinstatement of the suit and set aside the orders issued dismissing the matter for want of prosecution.
The suit was filed on November 9, 2015, by Raymond Kamotho Mwangi the vice chairman, David Gichara Ngata secretary and Rose Njeri Munoru . They Sued National Bank of Kenya and six others.
On January 16, 2019,when the matter was listed for a case management conference before Hon. Tanui Elizabeth, but it did not proceed to hearing and remained inactive until 2023.
The matter having not proceeded to substantive hearing for eight years, the court issued a notice to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution on May 22, 2023.The matter was then dismissed for want of prosecution and non-attendance on July 3, 2024.
The Plaintiff filed the application for reinstatement on August 2, 2024, more than a month after the suit was dismissed.
They explained why the suit should not be dismissed, citing the communication barrier between the Plaintiffs and their former client as the sole reason why the matter should not be dismissed.
The respondents suggested that the 8-year delay in prosecuting together with the further delay in filing and serving the application is an inordinate and inexcusable delay.
They depone that “the delay clearly demonstrates that the Plaintiffs have not been diligent in prosecuting this application as well.”
They argue that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate what ‘communication barrier” means and how it prevented them from prosecuting the matter for 8 years and therefore the same is inexcusable and an abuse of the court process.
Further, they added that the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence how the communication barrier prevented them from prosecuting the matter.
The defendant claims they stand to suffer prejudice as every matter requires a degree of finality and they have been appearing in court since 2015, paying advocate fees, yet the matter has not proceeded to hearing.
They insisted that if the suit is reinstated,they stand to suffer significant prejudice, including further unnecessary legal costs and delay. Such a delay in the resolution of the dispute undermines the right to a fair and timely hearing, and would result in further harm to their interests.
Justice Visram scheduled the matter to proceed for the hearing of application for reinstatement on July 28, 2025.
The senior citizens who are sickly are urging the court to have their cries heard and get justice where they claim the cooperative is now led by people who were no longer members and they have started subdividing and selling the land.
