ROSE JEPKEMBOI KAPTINGEI AND EDWIN ODHIAMBO OMONDI VS JAMES NZYOKA KIMUYU AND JACKSON MATELI MUILU

1. On 29/6/2019, an accident occurred along Nairobi/Mombasa Road    involving   motor vehicle   Reg No.    KCR 888F and Peter Muthini  Kimuyu (deceased).
2. The respondents filed Kilungu PMCC E191/22 on 15/7/2022 vide plaint dated 30/6/2022. 
3. In the  plaint ,  the respondent   contended  that  the  motor  vehicle  was  at  the  material   time  registered  in the names  of  the 1st  defendant ROSE   JEPKEMBOI KAPTINGEI     and was  driven  by  the 2nd  defendant EDWIN ODHIAMBO OMONDI -  so carelessly  that  he knocked  down  the deceased  PETER   MUTHINI  KIMUYU -  causing him fatal injuries which resulted in   loss  and damage   to  the beneficiaries,  and his  estate -  hence the claim for  damages  under  the Fatal Accidents  Act, &  Law  Reform  Act.
4. Upon  service  of  the plaint  -  the defendants  vide  statement of  defence  dated  1/9/2022  gave  notice  of  a  preliminary  objection of the filing of an application  to have the suit  struck  out  or dismissed on account  that  the  claim was fatally defective for being  time  barred  pursuant  to Section 4(2)   of the Limitation of Actions  Act  Cap  22 Laws of Kenya  - in that  the cause  of action arose  on  29/9/2019,  and suit  was filed  on 15/7/2022   without   leave of court. 
5. On 6/10/2022 the  plaintiffs  filed  an   ex parte  originating summons  seeking   leave  for  the applicant  “  to  file  suit  out of time  against  the respondent …  the suit  Kilungu  CMCC  E191/22  filed on 15/7/22  be deemed   to have  been properly   filed.”
6. The  summons  was opposed  -  and  upon   hearing  the learned trial  court  following  the reasoning   in Rawal  vs  Rawal  [1990] KLR 275  as adopted  in  Nairobi  High Court  Misc  Civil  Application   No.   376/2012 Francis    Mugo Ndegwa   vs Amboseli Court Ltd  found  merit  in the application and allowed  it  as prayed.
7. The  defendant   were  aggrieved  and fled  this  appeal on 6 grounds  set  out  in the memorandum  of  appeal  filed on 4/4/2023. The main ground  being  that the learned  trial  magistrate  erred  in not finding     that the  plaintiffs  had  not given sufficient  explanation  for  not filing the suit  within the  time  permitted  by law  -  and  that  he  did  so  because  he “failed  to  consider,  fathom   or  give  weight to the appellant’s  written  replying   affidavit;  considering  extraneous    matters; to give  due  weight  to the appellant‘s  written submission.”
8. The  appellant’s   seek  that  the  appeal     be allowed , the ruling of  the  subordinate  court  be  set  aside  and  the respondent’s application  be dismissed  with costs  to the appellant. 
9. The appeal was heard by way of written submissions.
10. For  the appellant  -  relying   on  County  Executive  of Kisumu vs  Count  Government    of Kisumu &  others  [2017]eKLR, Mombasa   County  Government  vs  Kenya  Ferry  Services  &  Anor [2019]eKLR  where    the court  emphasized  that  in an application   for   extension of time,  the applicant  must  declare  the whole period  of delay  and satisfactorily  explain  it to court. 
11. In this  case  the respondent’s  reason  was  that  when  the Road  Traffic  Accident   happened,  the police  did  not   supply  them with the particulars  of the  insurance  of the motor vehicle  and they had  to make  several    visits   to the police  station  to obtain  the same. That the  details  were obtained on 11/5/2022  and they  were  able  to file   suit  on 15/7/2022.
12. It is  also submitted  -  and relying  on  YH Whole Salers  Ltd  vs  Kenya  Revenue    Authority  [2021]  eKLR -  that  though  the  Originating  Summons  was ex parte,    there was no objection   to the participation of the appellant in the originating  summons  -  and in any event there is  no cross appeal -  that  though there  are positions  to the effect that  a  challenge   on this issue   ought  to  come  during   trial    however   this  applies     where the  application  is  for  filing  suit  out  of  time  made ex parte  before  suit is  filed ,  and before  involvement of the  defendant.  In this case the plaintiff filed suit without leave, and filed the application in reaction to the defence. 
13. For the respondent – it  is  submitted  that the ex parte nature  of the application to file suit  out of time is that it is  meant to be unopposed  - but   in this case -  the appellants  filed  response  and parties  took  directions on submissions. 
14. The respondent set out  2  issues  for determination:- The  1st  one   -  whether   an   application to file  suit  out  of time is  appealable.
It  is  submitted  that  Order  37 rule  6  (1)  & (2)  of the Civil  Procedure Rules   provides  for  the application  to be ex parte  by way of  Originating   Summons  -   in the  two abiding  circumstances. When  made   before  filing  the suit – ex parte   by originating  summons;  when  made  after filing  the suit  - ex parte  by originating   summons  within  the suit. It is submitted that no response is expected, neither is an appeal anticipated. This court is referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Oruta & Anor vs  Nyamato  ( Nairobi) Civil  Appeal  No.  96 of  1984;  that  the intention of legislature  in making  the law  the way it  did  was  to   prevent  “any possible  defence  of  limitation”
15. On the   2nd  issue -  whether   the trial  court misdirected  itself  in granting  the order  to file  suit  out  of  time  - it  is  submitted  that  there  is    no  ground   to support  this  ground.  The respondent  reiterates  the arguments  before  the  subordinate  court    -  that  the plaintiffs  needed  to be aware   who the insurer  was,  that  they needed   to comply   with   Section  10(2)  of the Insurance (Motor  Vehicle  3rd  Party  Risks  )  Act   Cap 405 Laws  of  Kenya  and relied    on Gateway  Insurance   Co.  Ltd   vs  Geoffrey  Kariuki  Githinji [2022]eKLR -  for    the requirement   that  the  statutory  notice  ought to be served  30  days before  the  commencement  of proceedings.
16. It  is  also   submitted   that  the   delay  in filing    the matter  after the last  day of  the  3 year  limit was not  unreasonable -  the  case of  Edward  Kamau  Ndungu  vs  Peter Njogu Gitau is  cited  -  here  the judge  was of the view  that  9  months  was not unreasonable -  and Veronica  Gathoni  Mwangi  & Anor  vs  Samwel  Kagwi Ngure  & Anor  [2016] eKLR  where it was held  that  a period  of  less than 3 months   could  not be inordinate.
17. I have carefully considered the submissions by counsel.  The 1st issue    is whether   the appellant   can appeal the decision   by the trial court.   Order 37  rule  6  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules  clearly  states  that   the application to extend  time  under  Section 27  of Cap 22 Law of Kenya  shall be by  ex parte  originating  summons, and where  there is  a  suit,  shall be by  exparte  origination  summon within that  suit.  Clearly  the appellant   had  no business  participating  in the ex parte  originating   summons, and even though they did  participate  the trial  court found   in favour  of the respondent. 
18. That  besides – a look at  Section  75  of the Civil Procedure Act and order  43 rule 1 of  the Civil Procedure  Rules  on the orders  and rules  form which an appeal   shall  be as    of  right   reveals   that  right, to appeal from an order under Order 37 Rule 6 does  not  exist.  Evidently  no  appeal  is  contemplated    as  of  right  from  an  order   made    under 0rder 37  rule   6   of   the  Civil  Procedure  Rule. I am   guided by the decision in Oruta & Anor vs  Nyamato
“ Reading  the  Act  closely,  it  is  not the intention of  the legislature  to allow  a  claim  based  on personal  injuries    on account  of  negligence, nuisance  or  breach    of duty  to  be met    with  a defence   of  limitation.  To prevent  any possible   defence of limitation  as   an exception   to  Section   4(2)  of  the Act  an ex parte  order  for  leave  to file  an action  has to be obtained.  Although  it  was a general  principle   in regard  to ex parte    orders that  the party  affected  by the order  could  apply  for it to be   discharged , yet   it  would  be contrary   to the intention  of the Limitation Act  … to allow  a defendant  to  apply,  before  trial of  the  action,  to  set aside  a ex parte   order  obtained    …   for  leave  …”
19. From  the   foregoing,  I need  not   add  more  save  that  the     appellant    has  no  right of  appeal   from the order made   under  0rder 37 rule  6  of  the Civil  Procedure   Rules. 
20. Did   the trial    court err   in granting   the order?   In my view  the trial  court  considered  all the factors  -  the reasons  for  the  delay, the length of delay and determined  that   it was sufficient  to warrant   the Plaintiffs’  leave   to proceed  with their  suit. 
21. Having  stated  that -  it is  not in the place of this court to reanalyze  the evidence  &  draw its  own  conclusion on that issue.
22. In the circumstances the  appeal  is  dismissed   with costs  to the respondents  -  and  with it  the stay  of proceedings   granted  pending the hearing  and determination  of this application be and is  hereby   set  aside.
23. The matter mentioned before the Deputy Registrar within 7 days hereof for onward transmission of the order to the subordinate court to hear and determine the matter.

Dated signed and delivered vis CTS this 20/8/2024

Mumbua T Matheka

Judge