[2016] KEHC 128 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 128 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since 3rd March 2009, and that the delay was inordinate and unexplained. However, the court noted that the rules require the party to be given notice to show cause before dismissal. Despite the defendants' request to dispense with this...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 128 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Eurasia International Trading Company Limited; Defendant: Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Ltd; Defendant: Ashif Kassam; Defendant: Azim Virjee
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 159 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to show cause why suit should not be dismissed; no immediate dismissal granted.
Judges
BA Mitullah
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Overriding Objective, Court Management of Cases
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Overriding Objective Court Management of Cases

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eurasia International Trading Company Limited

Plaintiff

Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Ltd

Defendant

Ashif Kassam

Defendant

Azim Virjee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay by the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since 3rd March 2009, and that the delay was inordinate and unexplained. However, the court noted that the rules require the party to be given notice to show cause before dismissal. Despite the defendants' request to dispense with this step, the court held that the plaintiff should be afforded one last opportunity to explain the delay, in line with the right of access to justice. The court therefore ordered that the plaintiff be served personally and be required to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed, with the hearing set for a specified date. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to show cause why suit should not be dismissed; no immediate dismissal granted.

Orders

  • Order to be served on the plaintiff and its directors personally within 7 days.
  • Plaintiff to show cause why the suit shall not be dismissed.