[2006] KEHC 1793 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 1793 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit since March 2004, and that the suit had previously been stood over generally in October 2002. The defendant's application for dismissal for want of prosecution was unopposed, as the plaintiff's counsel did not attend court despite...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] KEHC 1793 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Albert Kathiga Njeru; Defendant: Housing Finance Company of Kenya Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 517 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution; costs awarded to defendant
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Costs Award

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert Kathiga Njeru

Plaintiff

Housing Finance Company of Kenya Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 16 Rule 5.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to costs of the suit and the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit since March 2004, and that the suit had previously been stood over generally in October 2002. The defendant's application for dismissal for want of prosecution was unopposed, as the plaintiff's counsel did not attend court despite being served. The court held that the requirements of Order 16 Rule 5 were satisfied and that the defendant was entitled to dismissal of the suit and an award of costs.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution; costs awarded to defendant

Orders

  • This suit is dismissed for want of prosecution and the costs of the suit are awarded to the defendant.
  • The defendant is awarded costs of the Notice of Motion dated 29th May 2006.