[2018] KEHC 1503 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 1503 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The suit had been dormant since the plaintiffs changed advocates in September 2015, and no steps had been taken to prosecute the matter. The defendant had exercised its statutory power of sale and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 1503 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Benjamin Kimani Waruhiu; Plaintiff: Dulexe Printers Limited; Defendant: Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 454 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Interlocutory Injunctions, Statutory Power of Sale
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Interlocutory Injunctions Statutory Power of Sale

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Kimani Waruhiu

Plaintiff

Dulexe Printers Limited

Plaintiff

Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit is inordinate and inexcusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The suit had been dormant since the plaintiffs changed advocates in September 2015, and no steps had been taken to prosecute the matter. The defendant had exercised its statutory power of sale and sold the security in August 2011. The court applied the principle that a suit may be dismissed for want of prosecution where there is inordinate and inexcusable delay and no sufficient cause is shown. The plaintiffs did not respond to the application, and the court was satisfied that the requirements for dismissal under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules were met....

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The defendant is awarded the costs of the suit and of the Notice of Motion dated 31st May, 2018.