[2017] KEHC 7509 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 7509 (KLR)

The court found that while there was a period of inactivity exceeding one year before the application for dismissal was filed, the last recorded activity was on 4th February 2015, which was only about 48 days outside the prescribed period. The plaintiffs provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, including...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 7509 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Hamadi Murithi Munyi, Ali Abdulajid Ahmed, Abdul Karuri Mwangi, Abdallah Waititu Iddi, Issa Mohamed Mohammeed Abdi, Abdi Mohammed Mbithuka (suing on behalf of themselves and Pumwani Riadha Mosque Committee); Defendant: Chase Bank Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 59 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application for dismissal dismissed with conditions
Judges
F Tuiyott
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Case Inactivity, Grounds of Opposition, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Order 17 Rule 2 Case Inactivity Grounds of Opposition Costs Award

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamadi Murithi Munyi, Ali Abdulajid Ahmed, Abdul Karuri Mwangi, Abdallah Waititu Iddi, Issa Mohamed Mohammeed Abdi, Abdi Mohammed Mbithuka (suing on behalf of themselves and Pumwani Riadha Mosque Committee)

Plaintiff

Chase Bank Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  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 plaintiffs have shown good cause for the delay in prosecuting the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while there was a period of inactivity exceeding one year before the application for dismissal was filed, the last recorded activity was on 4th February 2015, which was only about 48 days outside the prescribed period. The plaintiffs provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, including their presence in court on the last hearing date and subsequent efforts to secure a new date. The court accepted the plaintiffs' explanation and determined that the delay was not inordinate. Consequently, the application for dismissal was dismissed, but conditions were imposed to ensure expeditious prosecution of the suit, including payment of costs to the defendant and a...

Court Disposition

application for dismissal dismissed with conditions

Orders

  • Plaintiffs shall pay the defendant costs of the dismissed application within 14 days of agreement or taxation of costs.
  • Plaintiffs shall within 30 days of this ruling have the matter fixed for hearing.