[2013] KEHC 6903 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 6903 (KLR)

The court found that although there had been a two-year delay in prosecuting the suit, the plaintiff provided a plausible explanation that the court file was unavailable at the registry, which is a recognized occurrence. The plaintiff also demonstrated readiness and willingness to proceed with the case. In the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 6903 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Euro Marine Industries Inc.; Defendant: Nation Media Group Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 660 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Application to dismiss suit for want of prosecution declined.
Judges
REA Ougo
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Case Management, Order 11 Compliance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Case Management Order 11 Compliance

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Euro Marine Industries Inc.

Plaintiff

Nation Media Group Limited

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 a two-year delay by the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in prosecuting the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there had been a two-year delay in prosecuting the suit, the plaintiff provided a plausible explanation that the court file was unavailable at the registry, which is a recognized occurrence. The plaintiff also demonstrated readiness and willingness to proceed with the case. In the exercise of judicial discretion, the court declined to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and instead granted the plaintiff an opportunity to comply with Order 11 within 60 days and to fix a hearing date. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss suit for want of prosecution declined.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to comply with the provisions of Order 11 within 60 days from the date of the ruling.
  • Parties to proceed and fix a hearing date at the registry.