[2014] KEHC 2576 (KLR)
The court found that the suit had stalled for almost four years without any action by the plaintiff, who failed to respond to the application or explain the delay. The delay was deemed inordinate and inexcusable. The defendant should not continue to be burdened by the pending suit, and the conditions for dismissal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2576 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: E.M. Kithimba t/a Kithimba & Associates; Defendant: J.S. Gathumbi t/a Prime Auctioneers
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 2170 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Inordinate Delay, Prejudice to Defendant
- 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
E.M. Kithimba t/a Kithimba & Associates
Plaintiff
J.S. Gathumbi t/a Prime Auctioneers
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay.
- 2 Whether the delay has caused prejudice to the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the suit had stalled for almost four years without any action by the plaintiff, who failed to respond to the application or explain the delay. The delay was deemed inordinate and inexcusable. The defendant should not continue to be burdened by the pending suit, and the conditions for dismissal for want of prosecution were met. Accordingly, the application for dismissal was allowed with costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 2170 OF 1998
E.M. KITHIMBA T/A KITHIMBA & ASSOCIATES…………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
J.S. GATHUMBI T/A PRIME AUCTIONEERS……………DEFENDANT
RULING
The defendant herein has taken out the notice of motion dated 10th April, 2014 seeking dismissal of this suit for want of prosecution. The application has been brought under order 17 rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010and section 1A and 3Aof the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenya seeking the following orders:
That this suit be dismissed with costs for want of prosecution.
That costs of the application be provided for and paid by the plaintiff in any event.
The application is premised on grounds that:
This suit was filed on 29th September, 1998.
The matter was last in court on 19th May, 2009.
There has been no application or any action whatsoever on the matter for a period of almost four (4) years.
The parties herein are not engaged in any negotiations on the matter.
The supporting affidavit of Tom O. K’opere, Counsel who has conduct and is conversant with this matter reiterates the grounds of the application.
The application was served but did not elicit any response hence the same remains unopposed.
When this application came up for interparties hearing on 1st October, 2014, Counsel for the defendant relied entirely on the grounds on the face of the application.
I have considered the application and the averments in support thereof. Order 17 rule 2 (3) provides that any party to the suit may apply for dismissal of a suit where no application has been made or steps taken by either party for one year.
Certain conditions have to however be met before a suit can be dismissed for want of prosecution. The test for dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution is whether the delay is inordinate and inexcusable and whether prejudice shall be occasioned to the party applying for such dismissal. I have taken liberty to peruse the file. In deed this matter has stalled for almost four years. The plaintiff despite being served with the application has taken no step to avail himself to explain the delay. The defendant cannot therefore continue to be burdened by this suit.
In the circumstances the application is allowed with costs to the defendant. It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and delivered in open court this 10th day of October 2014.
J.K.SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
N/A for the Defendant/Applicant
N/A for the Plaintiff/Respondent
With notice.