[2016] KEHC 2808 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 2808 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had not been diligent in prosecuting their case, as there had been no action for over a year and no opposition to the defendant's application. The injunctive orders granted in 2012 had lapsed by operation of law under Order 40 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the suit was not determined within twelve months and no sufficient reason was given for extension. However, in the interest of justice, the court declined to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, instead setting aside and vacating the injunctive orders and directing both parties to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within specified timelines to facilitate case management...

Citation
[2016] KEHC 2808 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Charles Ntiritu & 3 Others; Defendant: Stephen Robert Gitonga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
20 September 2016
Case Number
Civil Suit 26 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution and to Vacate Injunction
Outcome
Application partially allowed; injunctive orders vacated; suit not dismissed.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Interlocutory Injunctions, Order 40 Rule 6, Case Management, Injunctive Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Interlocutory Injunctions Order 40 Rule 6 Case Management Injunctive Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Ntiritu & 3 Others

Plaintiff

Stephen Robert Gitonga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution and to Vacate Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the injunctive order granted on 23rd February, 2012 should be vacated or set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs have failed to diligently prosecute the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had not been diligent in prosecuting their case, as there had been no action for over a year and no opposition to the defendant's application. The injunctive orders granted in 2012 had lapsed by operation of law under Order 40 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the suit was not determined within twelve months and no sufficient reason was given for extension. However, in the interest of justice, the court declined to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, instead setting aside and vacating the injunctive orders and directing both parties to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within specified timelines to facilitate case management...

Court Disposition

Application partially allowed; injunctive orders vacated; suit not dismissed.

Orders

  • This application is deemed heard and determined.
  • The suit is not dismissed.