[2013] KEHC 5280 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff and other defendants were properly served with hearing notices for the scheduled hearing dates, as evidenced by affidavits of service. Despite this, the plaintiff failed to attend court and did not provide any explanation for his absence. The court emphasized that the current legal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5280 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Fadhili Abdalla; Defendant: Bashelallali Shekale Shelali; Defendant: Cinque Emic Limited; Defendant: Commissioner of Lands
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 110 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- plaintiff's suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 2nd defendant
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Hearing Notice Service, Non Attendance, Costs Award
- 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
Fadhili Abdalla
Plaintiff
Bashelallali Shekale Shelali
Defendant
Cinque Emic Limited
Defendant
Commissioner of Lands
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-attendance at the hearing.
- 2 Whether proper service of hearing notices was effected on all parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff and other defendants were properly served with hearing notices for the scheduled hearing dates, as evidenced by affidavits of service. Despite this, the plaintiff failed to attend court and did not provide any explanation for his absence. The court emphasized that the current legal dispensation does not permit undue indulgence to litigants who show no interest in prosecuting their claims. In the interest of justice and judicial efficiency, the court determined that the appropriate remedy was to dismiss the plaintiff's suit for want of prosecution, with costs awarded to the 2nd defendant who was present and ready to proceed.
Court Disposition
plaintiff's suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 2nd defendant
Orders
- The plaintiff's suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs are awarded to the 2nd defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Malindi
Civil Suit 110 of 2011 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-autospace:ideograph-other; font-size:12. 0pt;"Liberation Serif","serif";} </style> <![endif]
FADHILI ABDALLA …................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BASHELALLALI SHEKALE SHELALI
CINQUE EMIC LIMITED
COMMISSIONER OF LANDS.............................DEFENDANTS
RULING
This matter was coming up for hearing at the instance of the 2nd defended who is in court. The date for hearing was fixed by Ms. Chebet, the 2nd defendant's representative on 6th December, 2012. she served the plaintiff with a hearing notice for today on 7th December, 2012 and the 1st defendant on 10th December, 2012. The 3rd Defendant was served with the hearing notice on 11th December, 2012. On 25th June, 2012, Hon. Justice Meoli directed the 2nd Defendant to invite the parties in this matter with a view of taking a hearing date and if the parties fail to attend for fixing of the date, the registry to fix the matter for hearing on 6th October, 2012. It was however not until 18th May, 2012 that the 2nd Defendant fixed this matter for hearing for 6th December, 2012 but the two were not in court. The court directed the 2nd Defendant to take another date in the registry and serve all the parties with a fresh hearing notice. The 2nd defendant fixed the matter for hearing again for 7th February 2013 and served the hearing notices on the plaintiff, the 1st and 3rd defendants as per the filed affidavits of service. When this matter was called out today, the Plaintiff, 1st Defendant and 3rd Defendant were not in court. No explanation was given for the absence of the parties in court. The 2nd Defendant has filed her list of documents and she has indicated that she was ready to proceed with the hearing of the main suit. The Plaintiff seems not to be interested in the suit thus his absence in court today. The current dispensation does not allow the court to show the same indulgence towards the conduct of a litigant who is not interested in his claim as was perhaps possible in a more leisured age. There will be cases, like in the instant one, in which justice will be served by allowing the consequences of the litigant who is not interested in his claim to fall on his own head. In the circumstances I dismiss the Plaintiff's suit for want of prosecution with costs to the 2nd Defendant.
Read and delivered in Malindi on this 7thday of February, 2013.
A. O. Angote
JUDGE