[2017] KEHC 989 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 989 (KLR)

The court found that the suit had already been dismissed on 26th September, 2016 for non-attendance of both the plaintiff and his advocate. As such, the subsequent application by the defendant seeking dismissal for want of prosecution was unnecessary and misconceived, since there was no suit pending before the court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 989 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Charles Ndwiga Nguuri; Defendant: Nation Media Group Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 175 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Suit remains dismissed as per the court order of 26th September, 2016; defendant's application for dismissal for want of prosecution is unnecessary.
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Non Attendance, Want of Prosecution, Malicious Falsehood, Injurious Falsehood
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Dismissal for Non Attendance Want of Prosecution Malicious Falsehood Injurious Falsehood

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Ndwiga Nguuri

Plaintiff

Nation Media Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution when it had already been dismissed for non-attendance.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's application for dismissal was necessary after the suit had already been dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suit had already been dismissed on 26th September, 2016 for non-attendance of both the plaintiff and his advocate. As such, the subsequent application by the defendant seeking dismissal for want of prosecution was unnecessary and misconceived, since there was no suit pending before the court to be dismissed. The court therefore confirmed that the suit remains dismissed as per the earlier order, and directed that each party bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

Suit remains dismissed as per the court order of 26th September, 2016; defendant's application for dismissal for want of prosecution is unnecessary.

Orders

  • The suit remains dismissed as per the court order of 26th September, 2016.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.