https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7164

Bio-Zeq Kenya Limited v Qiagen GMBH (Civil Case E077 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 7164 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (20 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7164 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Commercial and Tax Civil Case E077 of 2023 RC Rutto, J May 20, 2026 Between Bio-Zeq Kenya Limited Plaintiff and Qiagen GMBH Defendant Ruling 1.This matter was scheduled for hearing on 18th and 20th May, 2026. It first came up for hearing on Monday 18th May, 2026 but could not proceed as the Plaintiff was absent. Counsel for the plaintiff informed the court that he had been affected by the ongoing strike and was still in the process of complying with the court’s earlier ruling requiring them to pay costs. He therefore sought that the matter be adjourned to 20th May, 2026. 2.On 20th May, 2026, when the matter came up for hearing, counsel for the defendant was ready to proceed. However, counsel for the plaintiff applied for a further adjournment on grounds that he was unable to reach his client. He further informed court that the plaintiff had not complied with the court’s directions requiring payment of costs and therefore remained in default 3.This application for adjournment was strongly opposed by counsel for the defendant, who submitted that the date had been taken by consent, way back in February 2026 and that this is not the first instance in which hearing had failed to proceed at the plaintiff’s behest. Counsel referred the court to three previous occasions when the matter could not proceed due to the plaintiff’s conduct. These were on 18th September, 2025, when despite being allocated time to proceed, the plaintiff failed to attend court for a physical hearing. The plaintiff was directed to pay the Defendant’s costs of Kshs. 30,000/-. The case was adjourned to 26th February, 2026, when it was adjourned due to the Plaintiff’s witness absence, and later to 18th May, 2026. He urged the court to dismiss the suit with costs. 4.I have carefully considered the respective submissions of counsel and the record of the proceedings, particularly, the conduct of the Plaintiff in the prosecution of his case. 5.Every person has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court. A fundamental component of this right is the expeditious determination of disputes. 6.This right is bestowed upon all parties before the court whether plaintiff or defendant. A party who moves court to hear a dispute against another party enjoys this right to have the matter determined expeditiously. 7.The principle of equality before the law demands that both parties enjoy this legitimate expectation. A plaintiff cannot, having invoked the court’s jurisdiction, subject the defendant to prolonged uncertainty and inconvenience by failing to prosecute the suit with due diligence. In the present case, the record demonstrates a pattern of delay attributable to the Plaintiff, including repeated adjournments and non-compliance with court orders, spanning a period of approximately two years. 8.In the circumstances, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for dismissal for want of prosecution. The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the adjournment sought and has not complied with prior court directives. Accordingly, the application for adjournment is declined, and the suit is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant. 9.Orders accordingly. File is closed. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED VIRTUALLY THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.RHODA RUTTOJUDGEIn the presence of;Court Assistant: Wabwire.Mr. Obuya holding brief for Ms. Munyasia for the Plaintiff.Mr. Nyaribo for the Defendant.