[2014] KEHC 3386 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit since the dismissal of her application for injunction in 2004. The plaintiff's lack of action demonstrated a loss of interest in the matter. The court held that the continued pendency of the suit without prosecution was prejudicial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 3386 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Dinah Limo; Defendant: Jonah Kipkorir Limo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 124 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.
- Judges
- L Waithaka
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award, Case Management
- 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
Dinah Limo
Plaintiff
Jonah Kipkorir Limo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction by the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the continued pendency of the suit is prejudicial and oppressive to the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit since the dismissal of her application for injunction in 2004. The plaintiff's lack of action demonstrated a loss of interest in the matter. The court held that the continued pendency of the suit without prosecution was prejudicial and oppressive to the defendant. Applying the principles from Victory Construction Company vs. A. N. Duggan and the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the threshold for dismissal for want of prosecution had been met. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.
Orders
- The plaintiff's suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The plaintiff shall pay the costs of the suit to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CIVIL CASE NO. 124 OF 2004
DINAH LIMO…............................ PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
JONAH KIPKORIR LIMO...............DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. This is the defendant's Notice of Motion dated 6th May, 2008seeking an order of this court to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and costs thereof. The Application is expressed to be brought under Order XV1 Rule 5 (d), Order L Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, section 3 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 and all enabling provisions of the Law.
2. The application is anchored on a Supporting Affidavit deponed to by the counsel for the defendant Kisilah Daniel Gorsworn on 7th May, 2008 on the grounds that the plaintiff has no conceivable and /or perceived interest in the suit herein and the continued pendency of the suit herein unprosecuted has been oppressive, prejudicial and vexatious to the defendant. He avers that the plaintiff filed this suit on 5th May, 2004 and the suit was last set down for hearing on 28th June, 2004; that there is a clear exhibition of lack of enthuthiasim on the part of the plaintiff which indolence is oppressive to the applicant.
3. An affidavit of service was sworn by Bernard Owuoche, a process server of this court, on 7th December, 2013 in which he depones that he personally served the plaintiff who acknowledged service. The plaintiff did not respond to the application nor appear in court on 17th February, 2014 despite service.
4. I have perused the court record and heard submissions by counsel for the defendant. I take the following views on the matter.
5. Before this application, the applicant’s counsel was last in court on 7th July, 2010 praying that he be allowed to cease acting for the applicant. It appears that once the plaintiff failed to obtain injunction orders in the application filed contemporaneously with the suit dated 5th May, 2004 which was dismissed with costs on 24th September 2004, she lost interest in the matter and has not taken any action to have the suit set down for hearing.
6. It is true to say that the court should be slow to dismiss a suit for want of prosecution if the suit can be heard without any further delay, if the defendant will not suffer any hardship and if there has been no flagrant and culpable in activity Victory Construction Company vs. A. N. Duggan (1962) E.A. 697. But in this case where the Plaintiff has taken no action to move the court, I am persuaded that the plaintiff has lost interest in the suit.
7. I agree with counsel for the defendant that the continued pendency of the suit herein unprosecuted will be highly prejudicial and oppressive to the defendants/applicants.
8. I therefore find the Notice of Motion dated 6th May, 2008 merited and dismiss the plaintiffs suit for want of prosecution with costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 4th day July of 2014
L. N. WAITHAKA
JUDGE
PRESENT
N/A for plaintiff
N/A for Defendant
Emmanuel Maelo: Court Clerk
L N WAITHAKA
JUDGE