The High Court has been urged to reconsider and restore its previous ruling against Mbo-I-Kamiti Farmers Company Ltd, which had dismissed the case due to lack of prosecution and the plaintiff’s failure to attend court.
This case involves approximately 11,000 acres of valuable land in Kiambu County, and has been unresolved for a decade. On July 3, 2024, the court dismissed the suit for want of prosecution after the plaintiffs failed to appear in court.
During a virtual hearing at Milimani High Court, Justice Visram Aleem Alnashir acknowledged the application to have the case reviewed, as requested by the lawyers representing the plaintiffs.
They explained that the counsel had faced technical issues with their device during the virtual mention of the case in July 2024, which led to their absence when the case was called.
“Counsel for the applicant faced technical challenges with his device due to fluctuating internet connectivity, causing his call to drop,” part of the affidavit stated.
The court heard that after the counsel regained internet connection, they discovered that the case had been dismissed in their absence. The lawyer had then sought to address the judge, but the counsel list call had already concluded.
The plaintiffs are now seeking to have the suit reinstated and the dismissal order reversed.
The case was initially filed on November 9, 2015, by Raymond Kamotho Mwangi (vice-chairman), David Gichara Ngata (secretary), and Rose Njeri Munoru, who sued the National Bank of Kenya and six other parties.
On January 16, 2019, the case was scheduled for a case management conference before Hon. Tanui Elizabeth, but it failed to proceed, remaining inactive until 2023.
After eight years of inactivity, the court issued a notice on May 22, 2023, asking why the case should not be dismissed due to lack of prosecution. The case was subsequently dismissed on July 3, 2024.
On August 2, 2024, more than a month after the dismissal, the plaintiffs filed an application for reinstatement. They attributed the delay to communication difficulties with their former client, which they claim was the sole reason the case had not progressed.
In response, the defendants argued that the eight-year delay in prosecuting the case, coupled with the further delay in filing and serving the reinstatement application, was excessive and unjustifiable.
They argued that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently explained the “communication barrier” and how it prevented them from moving the case forward for eight years, describing it as an abuse of the court process.
Additionally, the defendants stated that the plaintiffs had not provided evidence to support their claim of a communication barrier. They also argued that the delay had caused them prejudice, as they had been attending court since 2015 and paying legal fees without any progress in the case.
The defendants further claimed that reinstating the suit would cause them significant prejudice, including additional legal costs and delays. They emphasized that continued delay undermines the right to a fair and timely hearing, and would further harm their interests.
Justice Visram has scheduled the hearing of the application for reinstatement on July 28, 2025.
Meanwhile, elderly plaintiffs, who are in poor health, have urged the court to hear their plea for justice. They contend that the cooperative is now being led by individuals who were no longer members and have started subdividing and selling the land, thus undermining their interests.
