[2000] KEHC 111 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had failed to take any steps to prosecute their Notice of Motion for over 15 months since its filing, which constituted inordinate and unexplained delay. The court accepted the applicant's submission that such delay indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the application. To...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 111 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Mwenje & 28 Others; Defendant: The Senior Principal Magistrate, Makadara
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 362 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Notice of Motion for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application allowed; notice of motion dismissed for want of prosecution; costs to respondent
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award
- 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 Mwenje & 28 Others
Plaintiff
The Senior Principal Magistrate, Makadara
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Notice of Motion for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Notice of Motion filed on 20th April, 1999 should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay.
- 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the application indicates lack of interest by the applicants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had failed to take any steps to prosecute their Notice of Motion for over 15 months since its filing, which constituted inordinate and unexplained delay. The court accepted the applicant's submission that such delay indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the application. To prevent further obstruction of proceedings in the Resident Magistrates Court and to uphold the efficient administration of justice, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application and dismissed the Notice of Motion for want of prosecution. Costs were awarded to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application allowed; notice of motion dismissed for want of prosecution; costs to respondent
Orders
- The Notice of Motion filed on 20th April, 1999 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The respondents shall pay the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
5 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBIMISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 362 OF 1997DAVID MWENJE & 28 OTHERS……………………………………….PLAINTIFFS-VERSUSTHESENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE, MAKADRA…………..DEFENDANTRULING This application by way of a Chamber Summons dated the 18th September, 2000 is asking for an order to dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 20th April, 1999. The reason for asking for the dismissal is that since the application was filed on 20. 4.99 the applicants have not taken steps to prosecute it. The application has the effect of blocking the hearing cases in the Resident Magistrates Court.
It is now over 15 months since the application was filed. I accept the concern expressed by Mr. Njiru in his submission over the delay in prosecuting the application, which shows clearly that the applicants are no longer interested in the application.
This application is allowed as prayed for in prayer No. 2 of the Chamber Summons dated 18th September, 2000 and filed on the same day. The Respondents shall pay the costs of this application. Dated and delivered this 28th day of September, 2000.
KASANGA MULWA JUDGE