[2023] KEHC 22579 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 22579 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit since April 29, 2020, despite being served with the application for dismissal and having ample opportunity to respond. The absence of any opposition to the application and the prolonged inactivity justified dismissal for want of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 22579 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Al Hyder Trading Company Limited; Plaintiff: Rana Shaukat Ali Waryam; Defendant: Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited; Defendant: Joseph Gikonyo t/a Garam Investment
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Commercial Case 46 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution. Each party to bear their own costs.
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Statutory Power of Sale, Case Management
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Statutory Power of Sale Case Management

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Al Hyder Trading Company Limited

Plaintiff

Rana Shaukat Ali Waryam

Plaintiff

Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited

Defendant

Joseph Gikonyo t/a Garam Investment

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded to any party upon dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit since April 29, 2020, despite being served with the application for dismissal and having ample opportunity to respond. The absence of any opposition to the application and the prolonged inactivity justified dismissal for want of prosecution. The court further held that each party should bear their own costs, as the 1st defendant retained the statutory power of sale regardless of the outcome of the suit.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed for want of prosecution. Each party to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • The suit against the defendants is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs of the suit.