[2018] KEHC 10194 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the prolonged delay in prosecuting the suit since its filing in 2009. The only action taken after the initial application was in 2011, and no credible evidence of ongoing negotiations was presented. The court determined that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 10194 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: African Banking Corporation Ltd; Respondent: Kenya Revenue Authority
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 10 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Case Management
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
African Banking Corporation Ltd
Applicant
Kenya Revenue Authority
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has provided sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the requirements of Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules have been satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the prolonged delay in prosecuting the suit since its filing in 2009. The only action taken after the initial application was in 2011, and no credible evidence of ongoing negotiations was presented. The court determined that the requirements of Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules had been met, as there had been no significant steps taken to advance the case for several years. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of cases and the avoidance of unnecessary delay in the administration of justice.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 10 OF 2009
AFRICAN BANKING CORPORATION LTD ............. APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY .......................... RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This is a ruling in respect to the Plaintiff showing cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. The plaint was filed on 9th January 2009. A ruling was delivered by this court on 11th March 2009 in respect to the plaintiff’s Application dated 8th January 2009. By that Application, the Plaintiff sought temporaly injunction to restrain the defendant from enforcing two agency notices both dated 30th December 2008. Although the ruling of that Application is indicatated as having been delivered on 8th Junuary 2009 by Justice Kimaru, I was unable to trace it in this file.
3. After the close of the pleading on 3rd February 2010, the Defendant took a hearing date for this matter which hearing was to take place on 7th July 2010. There is no evidence of any attendance by any party on that date.
4. The Plaintiff also fixed this case for hearing and a date was given for 28th September 2011. The case was however removed by the Senior Deputy Registrar on 26th July 2011, at a call over, because the parties failed to attend the same.
5. That was the last time that the matter was before the Court. It is because of failure of the parties to fix this matter after seven years, that the Court issued to the parties a Notice to Show Cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
6. On 26th July 2018, when the parties appeared before me to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed, the Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff informed the Court that the parties had enganged in negotiation and he requested for time to contact his client, to inform the Court of the outcome of that negotiation. The Learned Advocate for the Defendant denied that there was any such negotiations. The Court adjourned the matter to enable the Plaintiff bring evidence of the negotiation.
7. On 1st October 2018, the Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff did not show to the Court any negotiation that he had alleged had been taking place. He did concede that indeed this matter was old and need to be concluded. He urged the Court not to dismissed this suit for want of prosecution.
8. As I stated at the beginning, this suit was filed in the year 2009. The last action before court was on 11th March 2009. There is no sufficient explanation given by the Plaintiff why it has failed in all of this years to prosecute this suit. It is for that reason that I find that the Plaintiff has failed to satisfactorily show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. In my view Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules has been satisfied.
9. In the end I hereby order that this suit be dismissed for want of prosecution
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 5th day of October, 2018.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Ruling read and delivered in open court in the presence of:
Court Assistant....................Sophie
........................................... for the Applicant
........................................... for the Respondent
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE