[2004] KEHC 718 (KLR)
The court found that the 3rd defendant had established sufficient grounds for dismissal of the suit against him for want of prosecution, as the plaintiff had taken no steps to prosecute the matter for over two years after the close of pleadings. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding incompetence of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 718 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Bilson Stephen Mutuku; Defendant: Kenya Commercial Bank; Defendant: Diligent Auctioneers Ltd; Defendant: Sammy Gichuki Waigwa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 1421 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit as against the 3rd defendant dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 3rd defendant.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Amendment of Pleadings
- 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
Bilson Stephen Mutuku
Plaintiff
Kenya Commercial Bank
Defendant
Diligent Auctioneers Ltd
Defendant
Sammy Gichuki Waigwa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit as against the 3rd defendant should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the absence of a supporting affidavit renders the 3rd defendant's application incompetent.
- 3 Whether the application should have specifically sought dismissal only as against the 3rd defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 3rd defendant had established sufficient grounds for dismissal of the suit against him for want of prosecution, as the plaintiff had taken no steps to prosecute the matter for over two years after the close of pleadings. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding incompetence of the application for lack of a supporting affidavit, holding that the grounds for dismissal were ascertainable from the court record and did not require affidavit evidence. The court further held that any error in the prayer for dismissal could be cured by amendment under Order 6A Rule 5(1), and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any prejudice arising from the manner in...
Court Disposition
Suit as against the 3rd defendant dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 3rd defendant.
Orders
- The suit herein as against the 3rd defendant is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The costs of the suit and the costs of the application dated 14th May 2004 are awarded to the 3rd defendant as against the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION, MILIMANI
CIVIL SUIT NO 1421 OF 2000
BILSON STEPHEN MUTUKU ……………….…………………..……...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK…………………………..……...1ST DEFENDANT
DILIGENT AUCTIONEERS LTD ………………..…………….....2ND DEFENDANT
SAMMY GICHUKI WAIGWA ……………………...………..……3RD DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The 3rd defendant’s chamber summons dated 14th May 2004 is brought under Order 16 Rule 5 (a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The defendant seeks an order for the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.
The 3rd defendant successfully bid for the suit property on 28th July 2000 but states in his defence that the bid was on behalf of his client. The 3rd defendant was brought in these proceedings by an amendment of the plaint amended on 19th March 2001. The 3rd defendant filed his defence on 7th May 2001.
The court record shows that the last time this matter was in court was on 25th September 2002 and indeed, there it lay to sleep until the present application was filed.
The 3rd defendant seeks dismissal of the suit on the basis that it is more than three months since the pleadings closed.
The plaintiff’s counsel opposed the dismissal on the basis that this matter was being handled by his former partner who has since left for employment and that the present counsel did not know that any matter was pending in court in this file. Those explanations are not sufficient to warrant the court not to grant the prayers sought by the 3rd defendant.
Plaintiff’s counsel in submission stated that the 3rd defendants application was incompetent for failing to have a supporting affidavit. Order 50 Rule 7 requires an applicant by summons to state in general terms the grounds of the application and where the summons is based on evidence by affidavit a copy of that affidavit is to be served. The 3rd defendant stated the ground upon which he sought the dismissal and since that is ascertainable from the court file that did not require an affidavit. I therefore reject that line of argument.
The Plaintiff’s counsel further stated that the 3rd defendant application is incompetent because it seeks the dismissal of the plaintiffs suit yet it ought to be the dismissal of the suit as against the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff in making that objection failed to state what prejudice he suffered as a result of failure of 3rd defendant to so particularize. Order 6 A Rule 5 (1) provides power to amend an error in any proceedings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy. The applicant is clearly the 3rd defendant and he has never in this matter held himself to act for any other defendant, accordingly by the power donated to me by the aforesaid order I do hereby amend the chamber summons dated 14th May 2004 to read in prayer as follows:
“That suit herein, as against the third defendant, be dismissed with costs for want of prosecution.”
The third defendant has sufficiently proved that the action as against him ought to be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Accordingly the order of this court is that the suit herein as against the 3rd defendant is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution and the costs of the suit and the costs of the application dated 14th May 2004 are awarded to the 3rd defendant as against the plaintiff.
Dated and delivered this 10th day of December 2004.
MARY KASANGO
AG JUDGE