[2013] KEHC 4093 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 4093 (KLR)

The court found that more than a year had elapsed without any application or step being taken by the Plaintiff to prosecute the suit, and that the Plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient and excusable reasons for the delay. The death of the key witness and the withdrawal of the advocate were not considered adequate justifications, especially since the Plaintiff took no action after being served with notice of the advocate's withdrawal. The court noted that the Plaintiff had previously been given opportunities to prosecute the suit but failed to do so. Applying Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court held that the delay was inordinate and the Plaintiff's inaction was...

Citation
[2013] KEHC 4093 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Genetics Technologies Intl Ltd; Defendant: Pyrethrum Board of Kenya
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
23 April 2013
Case Number
Civil Case 533 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant
Judges
JB Havelock
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Court Discretion, Costs Award
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Court Discretion Costs Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Genetics Technologies Intl Ltd

Plaintiff

Pyrethrum Board of Kenya

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit was inordinate and inexcusable.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff has shown sufficient cause to avoid dismissal of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that more than a year had elapsed without any application or step being taken by the Plaintiff to prosecute the suit, and that the Plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient and excusable reasons for the delay. The death of the key witness and the withdrawal of the advocate were not considered adequate justifications, especially since the Plaintiff took no action after being served with notice of the advocate's withdrawal. The court noted that the Plaintiff had previously been given opportunities to prosecute the suit but failed to do so. Applying Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court held that the delay was inordinate and the Plaintiff's inaction was...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant's costs of the application.