[2006] KEHC 2108 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to diligently prosecute the suit, as evidenced by the prolonged period of inactivity since the last listing for hearing in 2001. The records showed no steps had been taken to advance the matter, and the plaintiff's advocate did not attend court or oppose the application....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2108 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Harrison Okoro Ochora; Defendant: Kenya Bus Services Ltd.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1398 of 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 1st defendant
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Case Management
- 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
Harrison Okoro Ochora
Plaintiff
Kenya Bus Services Ltd.
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / 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 defendant is entitled to costs upon dismissal of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to diligently prosecute the suit, as evidenced by the prolonged period of inactivity since the last listing for hearing in 2001. The records showed no steps had been taken to advance the matter, and the plaintiff's advocate did not attend court or oppose the application. Applying Order 16 Rule 5(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. The court further held that costs would be awarded to the 1st defendant/applicant, but not against the plaintiff for the 2nd and 3rd defendants, as they were absent during the hearing of the application.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 1st defendant
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the 1st defendant/applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 1398 of 1990
HARRISON OKORO OCHORA ………….....................................……………….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KENYA BUS SERVICES LTD. …………….......................................………… DEFENDANT
RULING
I: BACKGROUND
1. On the 4. 12. 88 the plaintiff/respondent herein was a passenger in a motor vehicle Reg. KUM 957 when it lost control and collided with another vehicle registration KSR 952.
2. The plaintiff/respondent sued 3 defendants on 20. 3.1990. The applicant/defendant having filed defence stated that no action on this matter had been taken since 1991. In September 2001, the matter was last listed for hearing. No action to date had been taken though it was admitted prior to 2001 there had been attempts to list matters for trial.
II: APPLICATION
3. The defendant applicant No.1 filed this application for dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution under order 16 r 5(a) Civil procedure Rules.
4. The respondent/plaintiffs advocate having been served failed to attend to court nor filed grounds of opposition. Having so been served the application was heard under order 9b r 3(a) Civil Procedure Rules.
III: Finding
5. The records speaks for itself. The plaintiff has failed to diligently list this matter for hearing and or prosecute the same. I hereby allow the application as prayed.
6. This suit stands dismissed with costs to the defendant No.1 applicant. There will be no cost against plaintiff for defendant 2 and 3 as they were absent during the hearing of this application.
Dated this 23rd day of May 2006 at Nairobi.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Nyauchi & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff - absent
Guram & Co. Advocates for the 1st defendant – present
Pramod Patel 2nd and 3rd defendants - absent