Sammy Karanja Maina v Bernard Murage Muriithi & another [2018] KEELC 2811 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court spared an 11-year-old land suit from dismissal because the parties had taken steps within the required one-year window, even though the court itself caused delays.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 2.Whether the dismissal notice dated 14th July 2017 was issued prematurely
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit had satisfied the threshold for dismissal under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
The dismissal notice was issued prematurely; the defendant had taken a hearing date within the period and subsequent adjournments were attributable to the court's unavailability, so no one-year inaction had occurred
The court traced the procedural history: after reinstatement of the suit on 13th October 2015, counsel took a hearing date for 16th February 2016, but the court was not sitting; a consent date of 24th May 2016 was also overtaken by the court's engagement elsewhere; and on 31st October 2016 the plaintiff filed an application to enjoin a 3rd defendant which was allowed by consent. These constituted steps within one-year periods, so the threshold for dismissal was not met.
Legal principles established
#- A suit is not liable for dismissal under Order 17 Rule 2(1) where an application has been made or a step taken by either party within one year, including taking a hearing date that the court did not sit on
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice for dismissal dated 14th July 2017 is withdrawn
- 2.The parties are directed to take the earliest available hearing date in view of the age of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction; suit originally filed in the High Court at Embu and transferred to this Court; procedure under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Dismissal of the suit under Order 17 Rule 2(1)
A step had been taken within the one-year period; hearing dates were taken by the parties though the court did not sit on those dates
Costs
No costs order made
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Notice for dismissal dated 14th July 2017 is hereby withdrawn.
The parties are hereby once again directed to take the earliest available hearing date in view of the age of this suit.
In the circumstances, it is clear that the notice dated 14 th July 2017 notifying the parties that this suit was due for dismissal under the provisions of Order 17 Rule 2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules was issued prematurely
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number or the names of the parties in the title, making identification of the suit impossible from the text alone
The judgment is signed by B.N. Olao J on 7th May 2018 but read and delivered by S.N Mukunya J on 26th June 2018; the coram does not explain the change of judge
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sammy Karanja Maina v Bernard Murage Muriithi & another [2018] KEELC 2811 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2811/eng@2018-06-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.