[2014] KEHC 4460 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 4460 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for nearly five years after filing, and did not oppose the defendants' application for dismissal. Citing established authority, the court held that it is the plaintiff's responsibility to move the case forward and that public...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 4460 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Christine Nazi Nyale; Defendant: Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd; Defendant: Julius Alama Mwambere
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 246 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to both defendants
Judges
MM Kasango
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.

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

Parties

Christine Nazi Nyale

Plaintiff

Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd

Defendant

Julius Alama Mwambere

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal 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 of the suit and the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for nearly five years after filing, and did not oppose the defendants' application for dismissal. Citing established authority, the court held that it is the plaintiff's responsibility to move the case forward and that public policy demands expeditious conduct of litigation. The unexplained and inordinate delay was deemed inexcusable, warranting dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The court further held that the defendants were entitled to costs of both the suit and the application.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to both defendants

Orders

  • Plaintiff’s suit is dismissed with costs to both defendants for want of prosecution.
  • Both defendants are awarded costs of the Notice of Motion dated 27th July, 2011.