[2008] KEHC 193 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit for almost eight years, despite being given opportunities and being duly served with the application and hearing notice. The plaintiff failed to respond or appear, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. The court held...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 193 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Apricot Apple Promotions; Defendant: Stanbic Bank Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 3016 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's suit dismissed for want of prosecution; defendant awarded costs.
- Judges
- AT Sitati
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Case Management, Costs Award
- 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
Apricot Apple Promotions
Plaintiff
Stanbic Bank Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has lost interest in prosecuting the suit.
- 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to costs of the application and the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit for almost eight years, despite being given opportunities and being duly served with the application and hearing notice. The plaintiff failed to respond or appear, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. The court held that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and that the interests of justice required the suit to be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order XVI Rule 5(a) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The defendant was awarded the costs of both the application and the suit.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's suit dismissed for want of prosecution; defendant awarded costs.
Orders
- The defendant's application dated 16/05/2005 is allowed.
- The plaintiff's suit is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order XVI Rule 5(a) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 3016 of 1997
APRICOT APPLE PROMOTIONS…………………....……………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
STANBIC BANK LIMITED………………………..……………..DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The application before me is the Notice of Motion dated 16/05/2005 brought under Order XVI Rule 5(a) and (c) and Order L Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law seeking orders that the Plaintiff’s suit be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Defendant also pray for costs of the application.
2. The Applicant says that the Plaintiff has failed and/or neglected to set down this suit for hearing and that in view of the delay of almost 8 years, a fair trial will not be possible. The Applicant further says that since justice delayed is justice denied, the Plaintiff’s suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. The application is also supported by the sworn affidavit of Collins Namachanja dated 16/05/2005. The deponent says that this matter was fixed for the hearing of Summons for Directions on 27/03/2000. That the issues were agreed on that day save Orders 10 and 11 of the Civil Procedure Act which both parties were ordered to comply with before 4/05/2000. That on 4/05/2000, the matter was stood over to 7/06/2000 for compliance but that on the said date, the matter was not listed on the days Cause List and that since then, the Plaintiff has taken no step whatsoever to set the suit down for hearing. The deponent concludes by saying that the Plaintiff has lost interest in his case which should now be dismissed for want of prosecution.
4. The application was duly served upon the Plaintiff by way of Registered Post on 7/05/2007. A hearing notice was also served upon the Respondents by way of registered post to Plaintiff’s counsel, M/s Wanja Kirimi & Company Advocates on 21/08/2005. The Respondents have not filed any Replying pleadings to the application, nor did they appear at the hearing of the application when the same came up for hearing on 16/10/2008.
5. I have considered the application as filed. I have also considered the law applicable to this case. I have further considered the Supporting Affidavit and the submissions made to me by Learned Counsel Mr. Gichuki for the Applicant. After considering all the above, and also after considering the court record, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has lost interest in this case. I note that leave to serve the Plaintiff by substituted service was granted on 20/06/2008. The Plaintiff was duly served by registered post pursuant to the said leave. As there has been no response from the Plaintiff as directed by court to do so within 21 days, I find and hold that the Plaintiff/Respondent does not wish to proceed with the case.
6. In the circumstances, I allow the Defendants application dated 16/05/2005 and hereby dismiss the Plaintiff’s suit for want of prosecution under the provisions of Order XVI Rule 5(a) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicant shall have the costs of both the application and the suit.
It is so ordered.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 20th day of November, 2008.
R.N. SITATI
JUDGE
Delivered in the presence of:-
…………………………………………………………………For the Plaintiff
…………………………………………………………….……For the Defendant