[2018] KEHC 5755 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit for eight years since its filing. The plaintiff failed to respond to the application or explain the delay, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. The prolonged and inexcusable delay was prejudicial to the defendants....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 5755 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Francesco Calagano; Defendant: Villa Care Management Limited; Defendant: Daniel Ojijo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 333 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application allowed; suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants.
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, 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
Francesco Calagano
Plaintiff
Villa Care Management Limited
Defendant
Daniel Ojijo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the defendants are entitled to costs of the application and the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit for eight years since its filing. The plaintiff failed to respond to the application or explain the delay, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. The prolonged and inexcusable delay was prejudicial to the defendants. The court held that the requirements for dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules were satisfied and allowed the application, awarding costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
application allowed; suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants.
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The defendants shall have the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 333 OF 2010
FRANCESCO CALAGANO........................................... PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
-VERSUS-
VILLA CARE MANAGEMENT LIMITED................1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
DANIEL OJIJO..........................................................2ND DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. This Ruling seeks to determine the application dated 20/5/2016 by the Defendants brought under the provisions of Order 17 Rule 2 (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking to have the suit dismissed for want of prosecution and costs of the application and the suit be borne by the Plaintiff. The Application is supported by the Affidavit of Stephen Gitonga Mureithi of even date.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that since the suit was filed on 1st July, 2010, the Plaintiff has never taken any step to prosecute the matter, that the delay is inordinate and it is apparent that the Plaintiff has lost interest in the matter. The Plaintiff did not file a response despite having been served with the application and a hearing notice of the application.
3. I have considered the application and the Applicants oral submissions. Dismissal of Suits for want of prosecution is governed by Order 17 Rule 2of the Civil Procedure Rules. Sub rule 3 of Order 17 Rule 2 provides that “Any party to the suit may apply for its dismissal as provided in sub-rule 1. ” And sub rule 1 provides that “In any suit in which no application has been made or step taken by either party for one year, the court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed, and if cause is not shown to its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit.”
4. The suit herein was filed 8 years ago and since then, nothing much has happened in the matter. Infact, it is the counsel for the defendant who has been moving the court by taking hearing dates on the last two occasions. A suit ought to be prosecuted while facts and evidence are still fresh in the memories of the witnesses. Despite the Plaintiff having been served with the application, he did not file a response. This is a clear indication that the Plaintiff has lost interest in the suit and is not desirous in prosecuting it. A delay of 8 years in prosecuting the suit is prolonged and inexcusable. The plaintiff did not explain this delay and therefore it is my finding that the pendency of the suit is prejudicial to the Defendants.
5. The application is therefore allowed with costs to the defendants. The defendants shall also have the costs of the suit.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 21st Day of June 2018.
…………………………….
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In the Presence of
…………………………. For the Plaintiff
…………………………. For the Defendant