[2016] KEHC 581 (KLR)
The court found that the suit had already been dismissed for want of prosecution on 25th February, 2015 under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Therefore, the current applications seeking dismissal were rendered moot, as the matter had already been determined. However, the applicants were entitled to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 581 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Chirag Holdings Limited; Defendant: G.K. Meenye t/a Meenye & Co. Advocates; Defendant: Nairobi City Council (now Nairobi City County)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1552 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Applications for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Applications dismissed as overtaken by events; costs awarded to applicants.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Delay in Prosecution
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Chirag Holdings Limited
Plaintiff
G.K. Meenye t/a Meenye & Co. Advocates
Defendant
Nairobi City Council (now Nairobi City County)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Applications for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to costs given the prior dismissal order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the suit had already been dismissed for want of prosecution on 25th February, 2015 under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Therefore, the current applications seeking dismissal were rendered moot, as the matter had already been determined. However, the applicants were entitled to costs of the suit and the applications, as they had sought relief that was already granted by the court's earlier order. The delay in prosecuting the case was inordinate, and no justification was provided by the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
Applications dismissed as overtaken by events; costs awarded to applicants.
Orders
- The applications dated 12th January, 2016 and 28th August, 2016 are dismissed as overtaken by events.
- The applicants are awarded costs of the suit and the applications.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 1552 OF 1998
CHIRAG HOLDINGS LIMITED.........................................................…………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
G.K. MEENYE t/a MEENYE & CO. ADVOCATES…...............................1ST DEFENDANT
NAIROBI CITY COUNCIL (now NAIROBI CITY COUNTY……………2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
There are two applications on record. The first is dated 12th January, 2016 by the 2nd defendant. The other is dated 28th August, 2016 by the 3rd party. Both applications seek the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. This suit was filed in July 1998. The last time it was before the court was 5th March, 2009 when the 3rd party was enjoined. Since then no action has been taken. The delay in prosecuting the case is inordinate and no reason has been advanced to justify the same.
On perusal of the court file, I noted that on 25th February, 2015 the matter was listed before Hon. Justice E.M Muriithi for dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. An order was made to that effect. The current applications therefore have been overtaken by events. That notwithstanding, the two applicants are entitled to costs of the suit and this application.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 14th Day of September, 2016.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE