[2006] KEHC 2145 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 2145 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had not been indolent and had taken active steps to prepare the suit for trial, including recent correspondence and filing of agreed issues. Although the defendant was entitled to bring the application under the rules, the timing was premature given the plaintiffs' demonstrated...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] KEHC 2145 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Daniel Gathaiya Njagi; Plaintiff: Kevin O’Byrne both t/a Gathatiya Njagi & Partners; Respondent: The Board of Trustees of the National Social Security Fund
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 680 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DW Mbuteti
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award, Case Management
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Costs Award Case Management

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Gathaiya Njagi

Plaintiff

Kevin O’Byrne both t/a Gathatiya Njagi & Partners

Plaintiff

The Board of Trustees of the National Social Security Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 16, rule 5 (a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have been indolent in prosecuting the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's application for dismissal is premature or justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had not been indolent and had taken active steps to prepare the suit for trial, including recent correspondence and filing of agreed issues. Although the defendant was entitled to bring the application under the rules, the timing was premature given the plaintiffs' demonstrated activity. Dismissing the suit at this stage would cause serious injustice to the plaintiffs. An award of costs to the defendant was deemed sufficient recompense. The application for dismissal was therefore refused, but the plaintiffs were ordered to take demonstrable steps towards prosecution within thirty days, failing which the court could be moved to review the order.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution is dismissed.
  • The plaintiffs shall pay the defendant's costs of the application, assessed at KShs.15,000, within fourteen days from the date of delivery of this ruling.