[2022] KEHC 26878 (KLR)
The court found that the petitioner had failed to take any steps to prosecute the matter since service of the application in April 2018, and neither the petitioner nor its counsel attended court or filed any response to the application for dismissal. The absence of any explanation for the delay or non-attendance,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 26878 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Gatero Instruments Limited; Respondent: The Honourable Attorney General; Respondent: The Principal Secretary, National Treasury; Respondent: The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Education, Science & Technology; Respondent: Devotra BV; Respondent: Oret Netherlands
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Commercial Petition 35 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Petition / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- petition dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 5th respondent
- Judges
- DO Chepkwony
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Backlog Management, Service of Process
- 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
Gatero Instruments Limited
Applicant
The Honourable Attorney General
Respondent
The Principal Secretary, National Treasury
Respondent
The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Education, Science & Technology
Respondent
Devotra BV
Respondent
Oret Netherlands
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Commercial Petition / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction by the petitioner.
- 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the matter is justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the petitioner had failed to take any steps to prosecute the matter since service of the application in April 2018, and neither the petitioner nor its counsel attended court or filed any response to the application for dismissal. The absence of any explanation for the delay or non-attendance, coupled with the need to manage court backlog, justified the dismissal of the petition for want of prosecution. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the petition, finding the petitioner to be lax and unresponsive, and awarded costs to the 5th respondent.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 5th respondent
Orders
- The Petitioner’s Notice of Motion application dated 12th April, 2018 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the 5th Respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Gatero Instruments Limited v Attorney General & 4 others (Commercial Petition 35 of 2018) [2022] KEHC 26878 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (5 July 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 26878 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Commercial and Tax
Commercial Petition 35 of 2018
DO Chepkwony, J
July 5, 2022
Between
Gatero Instruments Limited
Petitioner
and
The Honourable Attorney General
1st Respondent
The Principal Secretary, National Treasury
2nd Respondent
The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Education, Schience & Technology
3rd Respondent
Devotra BV
4th Respondent
Oret Netherlands
5th Respondent
Ruling
1. Vide a Notice of Motion application dated 10th September, 2021, the 5th Respondent sought leave to have the Petition dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. According to counsel for the 5th Respondent’s counsel, neither the Petitioner nor its counsel have attended court today or filed a response despite having been served with the said application and attended court on 19th May, 2022 when directions on its disposal were issue and this date fixed. There is no representation to explain their absence.
3. A perusal of the court record shows that the matter has been pending serviceupon the parties alleged to be in Netherlands since 12th April, 2018 when the pending application dated 12th April, 2018 was served.
4. In the circumstances, this Court finds that there is need to ease this Court of backlog since it is quite clear that the Petitioner appears to be laxed in having the same prosecuted.
5. This Court thus proceeds to dismiss the Petitioner’s Notice of Motion application both dated 12th April, 2018 for want of prosecution with costs to the 5th Respondent.
It is so ordered.
RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT KIAMBU THIS …5TH…DAY OF …JULY..…, 2022. D. O. CHEPKWONYJUDGEIn the presence of:No appearance for PetitionerNo appearance for and by either Respondents and or their respective counsel.M/S Waihenya counsel holding brief for M/S Odari counsel for 5th RespondentCourt Assistant - Sakina