[2016] KEHC 4621 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over three years after the close of pleadings, with no pre-trial directions sought and no explanation provided for the delay. This inordinate and unexplained delay was held to be contrary to the overriding objectives of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 4621 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Alvan Njeru Mugo; Defendant: Bernard Gutu; Defendant: Francis Karanja Njoroge; Defendant: Joseph Wambua; Defendant: Shaikh Enterprises Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 254 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Overriding Objectives, Pre Trial Directions
- 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
Alvan Njeru Mugo
Plaintiff
Bernard Gutu
Defendant
Francis Karanja Njoroge
Defendant
Joseph Wambua
Defendant
Shaikh Enterprises Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / 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 and unexplained delay by the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the delay contravenes the overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over three years after the close of pleadings, with no pre-trial directions sought and no explanation provided for the delay. This inordinate and unexplained delay was held to be contrary to the overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159 of the Constitution, which require that justice shall not be delayed. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the defendants/applicants.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The application dated 12th January 2016 is allowed.
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 254 OF 2010
ALVAN NJERU MUGO ….……………….……PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
A L;BERNARD GUTU ……….…….……..1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
FRANCIS KARANJA NJOROGE ……….2ND DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
JOSEPH WAMBUA………….……….….3RD DEFENDANT /APPLICANT
SHAIKH ENTERPRISES LTD………….….4TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
This suit was instituted before this court on 13th May 2010 pleadings closed in 2012 after the defendant filed amended defence. Since then, the plaintiff has never taken any steps to have the suit heard and determined. No pre-trial directions have been given and there is no attempt for over 3 years now to have the suit made ready for prosecution. No reasons are given for the delay. In the premise, I find that there is unexplained long delay contrary to the overriding objectives of the law under Section 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159 of the Constitution which commands that justice shall not be delayed.
Accordingly, I hereby allow the application dated 12th January 2016 and dismiss this suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(3) of the Civil procedure Rules and award costs of the application and the suit to the defendant/applicants.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court this 25th day of April 2016.
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE