[2009] KEHC 2140 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had not prosecuted the suit for more than three years and had failed to provide any explanation for the delay. In light of the unchallenged previous ruling and the provisions of Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that there was no merit in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 2140 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Dickson Musyoki Maundu; Defendant: Kangundo Farming & Ranching Company (Ithanga) Ltd; Defendant: Joshua Makau Mbuvi; Defendant: Peter Mutuku Nganga; Defendant: David Mbai Musyati; Defendant: Jasper Ntwiga Mwenda t/a Ntwiga Mwenda Land Surveyors
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 354 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- JM Khamoni
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Notice of Motion, 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
Dickson Musyoki Maundu
Plaintiff
Kangundo Farming & Ranching Company (Ithanga) Ltd
Defendant
Joshua Makau Mbuvi
Defendant
Peter Mutuku Nganga
Defendant
David Mbai Musyati
Defendant
Jasper Ntwiga Mwenda t/a Ntwiga Mwenda Land Surveyors
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in prosecuting the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had not prosecuted the suit for more than three years and had failed to provide any explanation for the delay. In light of the unchallenged previous ruling and the provisions of Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that there was no merit in the plaintiff's opposition to the application. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's application and dismissed the suit for want of prosecution, awarding costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 25th March 2009 is granted.
- The plaintiff's suit is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
CIVIL SUIT 354 OF 2004
DICKSON MUSYOKI MAUNDU........................................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KANGUNDO FARMING &
RANCHING COMPANY (ITHANGA) LTD)
JOSHUA MAKAU MBUVI
PETER MUTUKU NGANGA
DAVID MBAI MUSYATI
JASPER NTWIGA MWENDA
T/A NTWIGA MWENDA
LAND SURVEYORS............................... DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT
RULING
From what has been brought to my attention during the hearing of the Defendant’s Notice of Motion dated 25th March 2009 particularly the fact that the plaintiff/Respondent has not attempted to explain his failure to prosecute this suit for more than three years and in the light of the Ruling by Justice Ransley dated 11th April 2005 which has not been appealed against, I do not find any merits in the Defendant’s/Respondent’s opposition to the Notice of Motion. Accordingly, the said Notice of Motion is hereby granted and the Respondent’s suit hereby dismissed with cots for want of prosecution under order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Dated this 17th day of July 2009.
J.M. KHAMONI
JUDGE