[2013] KEHC 6730 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 6730 (KLR)

The court found that the delay in prosecuting the suit was not inordinate or inexcusable because the plaintiff's claim for special damages depended on the final determination of costs in the related election petition. The plaintiff was actively pursuing the taxation and references regarding those costs, and only...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 6730 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Esposito Franco; Defendant: Caroline Jepkemoi Waiyaki; Defendant: Maina Karanja t/a Kittony Maina Karanja & Company Advocates
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 27 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application for dismissal refused
Judges
DW Mbuteti
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Professional Negligence, Delay in Prosecution, Costs in Litigation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Professional Negligence Delay in Prosecution Costs in Litigation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esposito Franco

Plaintiff

Caroline Jepkemoi Waiyaki

Defendant

Maina Karanja t/a Kittony Maina Karanja & Company Advocates

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit is inordinate and inexcusable.
  3. 3 Whether the pending determination of costs in the related election petition justifies the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in prosecuting the suit was not inordinate or inexcusable because the plaintiff's claim for special damages depended on the final determination of costs in the related election petition. The plaintiff was actively pursuing the taxation and references regarding those costs, and only upon their resolution could the plaintiff properly amend the plaint and prosecute the suit. The court held that dismissing the suit at this stage would be unjust, as the plaintiff's ability to quantify his claim was contingent on the outcome of the pending cost proceedings. Therefore, the application for dismissal for want of prosecution was refused.

Court Disposition

application for dismissal refused

Orders

  • The application for dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution is refused.
  • Costs of the application shall be in the cause.