Court to hear petition seeking to reinstate Mbo-I-Kamiti land suit
Lawyers say they encountered the technical problem during the virtual mention of the matter before it was dismissed
The High Court has been urged to review its decision to dismiss a suit by Mbo-I-Kamiti Farmers Company Ltd for want of prosecution and non-attendance.
The matter, which involves about 11,000 acres of prime land in Kiambu County, had been pending for a decade and never proceeded for hearing prompting the court to dismiss it on July 3 last year.
Appearing virtually at Milimani High Court, Mbo-I-Kamiti lawyers told Justice Visram Aleem Alnashir they encountered the technical problem during the virtual mention of the matter before 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,” the lawyers said in their affidavit.
The court heard that when a lawyer for Mbo-I-Kamiti regained internet connectivity, he learnt that the case had been dismissed for his non-appearance after seeking audience with the judge after the counsel list call was over.
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 Deputy Registrar Elizabeth Tanui 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.
Mbo-I-Kamiti filed the application for reinstatement on August 2, 2024, more than a month after the suit was dismissed.
It 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, however, 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 averred that “the delay clearly demonstrates that the Plaintiffs have not been diligent in prosecuting this application as well.”
They further argued 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.
They added that the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence how the communication barrier prevented them from prosecuting the matter.
According to them, 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.
