[2010] KEHC 2285 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any meaningful action in prosecuting the suit for over a decade, despite opportunities to do so after changing advocates and after the court had already struck out certain paragraphs of the plaint for being time-barred. The court held that the delay was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2285 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Mureithi; Defendant: Nation Newspapers Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 126 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Limitation Periods, Defamation, 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
David Mureithi
Plaintiff
Nation Newspapers Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the claim was brought within the statutory limitation period for defamation actions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any meaningful action in prosecuting the suit for over a decade, despite opportunities to do so after changing advocates and after the court had already struck out certain paragraphs of the plaint for being time-barred. The court held that the delay was inordinate and unjustified, and that the defendant was entitled to seek dismissal for want of prosecution under Order XVI of the Civil Procedure Rules. The statutory limitation period for defamation claims is one year, and the plaintiff's failure to amend the plaint or proceed with the case within this period further justified dismissal. The court concluded that the interests of justice...
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant
Orders
- The application to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution is allowed.
- The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
Civil Case 126 of 1998
DAVID MUREITHI ..........................................................................PLAINTIFF
=VERSUS=
NATION NEWSPAPERS LIMITED........................................DEFENDANT
Ruling
Application to dismiss suit for want of prosecution dated 28th January 2010
I.Background
1. The Plaintiff herein sued the Nation News Papers for Defamation on the 9th January 1998. For over three years no action by the Plaintiff had been taken. The Defendants wrote to the Court requesting that the suit be struck out. The Plaintiff changed Advocates from
D.M. Amayamu and Co. Advocates to M/s Mutkaha Obwatinya & Co. Advocates.
2. Another lapse of 2 years 8 months passed. The Defendant had in the meantime applied that part of the Plaint be struck out as having been pleaded outside the limitation of action of 1 (one) year permitted by law to bring a claim. This Preliminary Objection was upheld and on 22nd May 2006, Ibrahim J. struck out paragraph 4,5,6,7,8 and 14. it was thereafter that the present application was filed seeking that the whole Plaint be struck out because the said Plaintiff had taken no action.
II.In Reply
3. The Plaintiff/Respondent replied through his Advocate that he was ill in the 1998/1999 and therefore couldn’t instruct his advocate. He then changed advocates but unfortunately in 2007, the political temperatures arose. He prays the application be not granted.
II.Opinion
4. In Defamation cases, 1 years only is permitted in which
to bring a claim. Ibraim J. has expunged the claims
duly given by the Plaintiffs and filed out of time.
5. The Plaintiff has taken no action in this matter. The
Plaint was drawn by the first Advocate. The second advocate who took over required to then amend the Plaint to file particulars of defamation . This was not done according to law.
6. The issue before me is the inordinate delay in dealing
with this matte since 1998. This Court would agree
that after one year of no action by the Plaintiff the
Respondent is permitted under order XVI Civil
Procedure Rules to bring an application to have the
matter dismissed.
7. I accordingly do so and order the application be
allowed. This suit is dismissed with costs to the
Applicant.
DATED THIS25THDAY OFMAY2010 AT ELDORET.
M.A. ANG’AWA,
JUDGE.
Advocates:
(i) J.A. Okore Advocate instructed by the firm of M/sKagucia & Co. Advocate for the
Defendant/applicant - Present
(ii) C.O. Obwatinya Advocate instructed by the firm of Mutakha Obwatinya & Co.
Advocate for the Plaintiff/Respondent – Absent.