[2017] KEHC 3915 (KLR)
The court found that although the delay in prosecuting the suit was inordinate, the nature of the evidence—being based on a newspaper publication—meant that the risk of prejudice to the defendants was minimized, as the printed material was preserved and part of the court record. The plaintiff had demonstrated...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 3915 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ahmed Sheikh Adan; Defendant: Wangethi Mwangi; Defendant: Nation Newspaper Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 1881 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Defendants' application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed. Plaintiff directed to complete prosecution within 6 months or suit will be dismissed with costs to defendants.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Discretion, Delay in Prosecution, Defamation, 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
Ahmed Sheikh Adan
Plaintiff
Wangethi Mwangi
Defendant
Nation Newspaper Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient interest and justification for the delay to avoid dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the delay in prosecuting the suit was inordinate, the nature of the evidence—being based on a newspaper publication—meant that the risk of prejudice to the defendants was minimized, as the printed material was preserved and part of the court record. The plaintiff had demonstrated continued interest in the suit, and the delay was partly explained by difficulties with legal representation and file tracing. Exercising its discretion judicially, the court declined to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution but imposed a strict timeline for the plaintiff to complete prosecution, failing which the suit would be dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
Defendants' application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed. Plaintiff directed to complete prosecution within 6 months or suit will be dismissed with costs to defendants.
Orders
- Defendants' application for dismissal for want of prosecution is dismissed.
- Plaintiff to complete prosecution of the suit within 6 months from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1881 OF 2001
AHMED SHEIKH ADAN...................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
WANGETHI MWANGI..........................................1ST DEFENDANT
NATION NEWSPAPER LIMITED.......................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
This is a very old case having been filed in November, 2001. It has remained in the list of pending cases since then, although the record shows that it is part heard and for some reason has never moved beyond the plaintiff’s testimony.
Considering the length of time it has remained pending, the defendants filed an application by way of Notice of Motion dated 11th and filed on 22nd May, 2017 for the suit to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The application is based on Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 17 Rule 2 (1) and (3) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
The defendants have observed in the grounds that appear on the face of the application that, the publication complained of by the plaintiff was published on 3rd January, 2001 which is over 16 years ago and the last time the matter was in court was April, 2012 which is almost 5 years ago. Since then, no step has been taken to prosecute the case.
There is an observation that the plaintiff invited the defendants to take a hearing date in November, 2013 but since then no steps have been taken to prosecute the matter. The delay is prejudicial to the defendants in that, due to the passage of time, their witnesses may not be available and if they are available, their recollection of events may not be accurate. On those grounds the defendants plead the suit should be dismissed.
The plaintiff has filed a replying affidavit in which he depones, he had some misunderstanding with his previous advocate which forced him to engage a new firm of advocates who prepared Notice of Change but could not trace the file in the registry. His request in writing to the Deputy Registrar did not elicit a reply and going by the said correspondence, it is clear he is still interested in pursuing the suit and therefore should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The orders sought are discretionary although it is clear the court has power to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2. There are no restrictions or limits on the judge’s discretion except that it should be based on such terms as may be just because the main concern of the court is to do justice to the parties.
I have to consider whether or not such discretion is to avoid injustice or hardship that may result from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake. Further, the said discretion should be exercised judicially and in a selective and discriminatory manner, not arbitrarily – See Maina Vs. Mugiria [1983] e KLR.
I have considered the pleadings on record and the averments in the affidavits relating to this application. The cause of action is premised on a publication made in the Daily Nation, a newspaper owned by the 2nd defendant and where the 1st defendant was the Chief Editor. Whereas it is true that the prosecution of this case and the delay appears inordinate, the nature of evidence to be advanced relates to printed matter whose preservation goes beyond human memory.
The risk of it disappearing is therefore minimised by that fact. In fact, copies of that publication are part of the record before the court. I also note that the matter is part heard and the plaintiff gave evidence to some extent before another judge who is no longer in this station. That is also a demonstration that he is still interested in this suit.
I am inclined to find in favour of the plaintiff and dismiss the defendant’s application, which I hereby do. Considering the age of this suit, I direct that the plaintiff shall endeavour to complete the prosecution of this suit within 6 months from the date of this ruling, failure of which the suit shall be dismissed with costs to the defendants. The costs of this application shall be in the cause. Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 19th Day of July, 2017.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE