[2007] KEHC 1596 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over 14 years, despite being given opportunities and warnings by the court. The Plaintiff did not oppose the application or provide any explanation for the delay. The court held that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 1596 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Guardian Chemists Ltd; Defendant: Mowlem Construction Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 828 of 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution; costs awarded to defendant
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Inordinate Delay, Case Management, Court Discretion
- 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
Guardian Chemists Ltd
Plaintiff
Mowlem Construction Co. Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff's suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay.
- 2 Whether the delay has caused prejudice to the Defendant or made a fair trial impossible.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over 14 years, despite being given opportunities and warnings by the court. The Plaintiff did not oppose the application or provide any explanation for the delay. The court held that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and that such conduct prejudices the Defendant and undermines the fair administration of justice. Applying the principles from Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and relevant case law, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the Defendant.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution; costs awarded to defendant
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The Defendant is awarded the costs of the suit and of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 828 of 1995
GUARDIAN CHEMISTS LTD………….…………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MOWLEM CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD……...………..DEFENDANT
RULING
Before me is an application by the Defendant under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking an order that the suit against him be dismissed with costs for want of prosecution as well as the costs of this application. The application is based on the ground that there has been inordinate delay. In support of the application Allan George Kamau has sworn an affidavit giving grounds for the application.
Rule 5 of Order XVI provides as follows:-
“If within 3 months after (a) the close of pleadings; or (b).. (c) the removal of the suit from the hearing list; or (d) the adjournment of the suit generally, the Plaintiff does not set down the suit for hearing, the Defendant may either set down the suit for hearing or apply for its dismissal.”
Mr. Maina for the Defendant, submits that it is a proper case which the Plaintiff’s action should dismissed under Rule 5. The Plaintiff’s Cause of Action is based on an alleged motor accident which took place on or about the 13th September 1994 at about 6. 45 a.m. whereby the Plaintiff’s motor vehicle registration NO.KAA 374L violently collided with the Defendant’s motor vehicle registration NO.KGV 832 along Chiromo Museum Road as a result of which the Plaintiff’s said motor vehicle was extensively damages and he incurred Shs.606,943/= costs of repair. The Plaintiff filed this suit on 15th March 1995 and the Defendant on being served with the summons filed defence on 3rd April 1995.
The Plaintiff took no steps to set the suit down for hearing until 23rd February 1998 when it was last set for full hearing but it was taken out of the cause list on the courts own motion. Thereafter the Plaintiff never took any steps to set the suit down for hearing until 4th March 2002 when the Defendant brought a Notice of Motion to have the Plaintiff’s suit dismissed for want of prosecution but the application was not allowed and the Plaintiff was given a chance to fix the suit down for hearing but the Plaintiff took no steps as directed by the court.
This Notice of Motion was filed on 22nd February 2007 but the Plaintiff though served did not file any papers in opposition to the application.
The Defendant alleges inordinate delay on the part of the Plaintiff in bringing his suit to a speedy conclusion.
The question of delays in bringing civil actions to speedy conclusions was exhaustively considered by the Court of Appeal in England in Allen Vs. Sir Alfred MC Alpine & Sons where it was held that when the delay is prolonged and inexcusable, and is such as to do grave injustice to the one side or the other or both, the court may in its discretion dismiss the action straight away. On the other hand, this power should not be exercised unless the court is satisfied:
(1) that the default has been intentional and cantumelious eg conduct amounting to an abuse of the process of the court; or (2) (a) that there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay on the part of the Plaintiff or his lawyers and (b) that such delay will give rise to a substantial risk that it is not possible to have a fair trial of the issues in action or is such as is likely to cause or to have caused serious prejudice to the Defendants either between themselves and the Plaintiff or between each other or between them and a Third Party.
In the instant suit the Cause of Action arose on 13th September 1994. The Plaintiff has never taken steps to set the suit down for hearing. At one point the Defendant had applied for the suit to be dismissed for want of prosecution but the application was refused and the Plaintiff was given a chance to take steps but to date since 4th March 2002 he has not taken any steps to set the suit down for hearing. He was served with this application but did not file any papers in opposition. The delay of 14 years is excessive and the Plaintiff has been guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay.
In the case of Fitzpatrick Vs. Batger & Co. Ltd [1967] 2 ALL ER566 Lord Denning said at page 658:
“…………….. it is the duty of the Plaintiff’s adviser to get on with the case. Public Policy demands that the business of the courts should be conducted with expedition.”
There being no explanation for delay there is no way the court can exercise its discretion otherwise.
Accordingly I allow the application and dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. I award the Defendant costs of the suit and of this application.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 19th day of July 2007.
J.L.A. OSIEMO
JUDGE