[2004] KEHC 838 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 838 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit since July 2002, despite being served with the present application. The plaintiff neither filed a response nor attended the hearing, demonstrating a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. The court concluded that the delay was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] KEHC 838 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Blue Shield Insurance Co. Ltd; Defendant: Electronic Infortech and Services Limited; Defendant: Wilbert Kipsang Choge; Defendant: 15th Defendant; Defendant: 16th Defendant
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 1641 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 1st, 2nd, 15th, and 16th defendants.
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Costs Award

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blue Shield Insurance Co. Ltd

Plaintiff

Electronic Infortech and Services Limited

Defendant

Wilbert Kipsang Choge

Defendant

15th Defendant

Defendant

16th Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are entitled to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit since July 2002, despite being served with the present application. The plaintiff neither filed a response nor attended the hearing, demonstrating a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. The court concluded that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and that the interests of justice required the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The court therefore granted the application as prayed, with costs to the 1st, 2nd, 15th, and 16th defendants.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 1st, 2nd, 15th, and 16th defendants.

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st, 2nd, 15th, and 16th defendants.