[2010] KEHC 1784 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since the last court appearance in July 2007, nor had they responded to the application for dismissal or attended the hearing despite proper service. This conduct demonstrated a clear lack of interest in pursuing the claim. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1784 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Felix Ochieng; Plaintiff: Samuel Chone Matano; Plaintiff: Yusuf K. Orlooh; Defendant: Paul Imbandiku Chabeda; Defendant: Ruth Harriet Chabeda
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 588 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants
- Judges
- CM Njagi
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Management, 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
Felix Ochieng
Plaintiff
Samuel Chone Matano
Plaintiff
Yusuf K. Orlooh
Plaintiff
Paul Imbandiku Chabeda
Defendant
Ruth Harriet Chabeda
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction by the plaintiffs.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs demonstrated any interest in prosecuting the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since the last court appearance in July 2007, nor had they responded to the application for dismissal or attended the hearing despite proper service. This conduct demonstrated a clear lack of interest in pursuing the claim. The court held that the defendants had established sufficient grounds for dismissal for want of prosecution under Order XVI Rule 5(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The plaintiffs shall bear the costs of the suit and the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Case 588 of 2006
FELIX OCHIENG ………………......…………………….. 1ST PLAINTIFF
SAMUEL CHONE MATANO ………........……………….. 2ND PLAINTIFF
YUSUF K. ORLOOH ……………………… 3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PAUL IMBADIKU CHABEDA …………...………...…. 1ST DEFENDANT
RUTH HARRIET CHABEDA ………………...…….… 2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
By this application, the Defendants seek an order that this suit be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The application is brought by a notice of motion dated 22nd December, 2009, pursuant to Order XVI Rule 5 (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3 A of the Civil Procedure Act.It is supported by the annexed affidavit of Paul Imbandiku Chabeda, the 1st Defendant herein, and is based on the grounds that this suit was last in Court on 31st July, 2007, when a ruling was delivered by Hon. Justice Khamoni.Since that date, the Plaintiffs have not set the case down for hearing and have, instead, demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing their claim.It is therefore in the interests of justice that the suit be dismissed as prayed.
The record shows that the Plaintiffs in this suit were served on 24th March, 2010, and that the application was coming up for hearing on 12th June, 2010. The Plaintiffs have filed neither a replying affidavit, nor grounds of opposition, and to crown it, they did not attend Court for the hearing of the application in spite of having been served in sufficient time to do so.This demonstrates a clear apathy towards this suit and the Plaintiffs appear to have lost any interest in prosecuting it.
For the aforegoing reasons, the application is merited and this suit is accordingly dismissed with costs as prayed.The Plaintiffs will also bear the costs of this application.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered atNairobithis 1st day of July, 2010.
L. NJAGI
JUDGE