[2009] KEHC 2175 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 2175 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had taken no action to prosecute the suit since its filing, with no summons to enter appearance ever issued. The only applications made were withdrawn, and no further steps were taken. The court held that the suit served no useful purpose and only contributed to the backlog of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 2175 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Charles Kamau Kiruthi; Applicant: Dr. John Kibunga Kimani; Applicant: Henry Mwasama Wanyonyi; Applicant: Esther Wambui Kimani; Applicant: David Muthami Muthee; Applicant: Mwangi Gikungi; Respondent: Capital Markets Authority; Respondent: Peter Gachigi Thuo; Respondent: Francis Thuo & Partners
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 110 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit against 2nd defendant dismissed for want of prosecution with costs
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Summons to Enter Appearance, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Summons to Enter Appearance Abuse of Process

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Kamau Kiruthi

Applicant

Dr. John Kibunga Kimani

Applicant

Henry Mwasama Wanyonyi

Applicant

Esther Wambui Kimani

Applicant

David Muthami Muthee

Applicant

Mwangi Gikungi

Applicant

Capital Markets Authority

Respondent

Peter Gachigi Thuo

Respondent

Francis Thuo & Partners

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the suit against the 2nd Defendant should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs took any steps to prosecute the suit after its filing.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of issued summons to enter appearance renders the suit a nullity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had taken no action to prosecute the suit since its filing, with no summons to enter appearance ever issued. The only applications made were withdrawn, and no further steps were taken. The court held that the suit served no useful purpose and only contributed to the backlog of cases. As such, the suit against the 2nd Defendant was dismissed for want of prosecution, with costs awarded to the 2nd Defendant.

Court Disposition

suit against 2nd defendant dismissed for want of prosecution with costs

Orders

  • The suit against the 2nd Defendant is dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 2nd Defendant.