[2016] KEHC 8518 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 8518 (KLR)

The court found that the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution was erroneous because a consent order had already determined the case and costs had been taxed. Therefore, the order made on 15th June 2015 was set aside and the suit reinstated. The court further held that since the plaintiff was not responsible...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 8518 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: CYPERR ENTERPRISES LIMITED; Defendant: NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LIMITED
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 1615 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order
Outcome
Application to set aside dismissal order allowed; suit reinstated.
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Consent Orders, Taxation of Costs, Setting Aside Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Consent Orders Taxation of Costs Setting Aside Orders

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CYPERR ENTERPRISES LIMITED

Plaintiff

NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution was proper in light of the prior consent order and taxation of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the order dismissing the suit should be set aside.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application to set aside the dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution was erroneous because a consent order had already determined the case and costs had been taxed. Therefore, the order made on 15th June 2015 was set aside and the suit reinstated. The court further held that since the plaintiff was not responsible for the erroneous dismissal, it would be unjust to order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the application to set aside the dismissal. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs for the application. The court also directed that the defendant serve Hon. Cyrus Jirongo, as principal director of the plaintiff, with summons for oral examination regarding the company's assets and...

Court Disposition

Application to set aside dismissal order allowed; suit reinstated.

Orders

  • The orders made on 15th June 2015 dismissing the suit are set aside forthwith.
  • The suit is reinstated.