The High Court has been urged to review and reinstate a suit involving Mbo-I-Kamiti Farmers Company Ltd after the case was dismissed for want of prosecution and non-attendance.
The dispute involves about 11,000 acres of prime land in Kiambu County and has been pending in court for nearly a decade without proceeding to a substantive hearing.
Mbo-I-Kamiti Farmers Company seeks reinstatement
The suit was dismissed on July 3, 2024, after the plaintiffs failed to appear in court.
The plaintiffs have now asked the High Court to set aside the dismissal orders and reinstate the matter, arguing that their advocate experienced technical difficulties during a virtual court session.
The application was heard virtually before Justice Visram Aleem Alnashir.
According to an affidavit filed in court, the advocate’s internet connection dropped when the matter was called.
“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,” the affidavit states.
The advocate reportedly regained connectivity after the matter had already been dismissed and subsequently sought audience from the judge.
Land dispute has been in court since 2015
The suit was filed on November 9, 2015, by Raymond Kamotho Mwangi, David Gichara Ngata and Rose Njeri Munoru.
They sued National Bank of Kenya and six other parties over the disputed property.
The matter was listed for a case management conference on January 16, 2019, but did not proceed to hearing and remained inactive until 2023.
After the matter had remained unresolved for several years, the court issued a notice to show cause on May 22, 2023, requiring the plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The suit was eventually dismissed on July 3, 2024, for want of prosecution and non-attendance.
Defendants oppose reinstatement
The respondents have opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiffs have failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the prolonged delay.
They contend that the eight-year delay in prosecuting the matter, followed by additional delay in filing and serving the reinstatement application, amounts to inordinate and inexcusable delay.
The respondents also questioned the explanation concerning an alleged communication barrier between the plaintiffs and their former advocate.
They argued that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated how the communication difficulties prevented them from prosecuting the matter for eight years.
Respondents cite prejudice
The defendants further argued that reinstating the suit would cause them significant prejudice.
They said they have continued attending court since 2015 and incurred legal expenses despite the matter never proceeding to hearing.
According to the respondents, reopening the dispute would expose them to additional legal costs and further delay the resolution of the matter.
They maintained that continued delays would undermine the right to a fair and timely hearing.
Senior citizens seek justice over land
The applicants, some of whom are senior citizens and reportedly suffering from ill health, have urged the court to hear their grievances and allow them to pursue the dispute.
They allege that the cooperative is now being led by individuals who are no longer members and that the disputed land has started being subdivided and sold.
