[2013] KEHC 6731 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 6731 (KLR)

The court found that the delay of approximately eleven months in prosecuting the suit was satisfactorily explained by the breakdown in relations between the Plaintiffs and their advocates. Once the relationship was restored, the Plaintiffs' advocates acted promptly to prepare the case for trial. There was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 6731 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Herbert Ocholla Ojwang; Plaintiff: Denice Otieno Ounda; Plaintiff: Komola Investments Ltd; Defendant: Central Bank of Kenya; Defendant: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd; Defendant: The Honourable Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 205 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed; costs awarded to 2nd Defendant.
Judges
DW Mbuteti
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Inordinate Delay, Case Management, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Inordinate Delay Case Management 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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herbert Ocholla Ojwang

Plaintiff

Denice Otieno Ounda

Plaintiff

Komola Investments Ltd

Plaintiff

Central Bank of Kenya

Defendant

Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd

Defendant

The Honourable Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit was satisfactorily explained.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants would suffer prejudice if the suit proceeds to trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of approximately eleven months in prosecuting the suit was satisfactorily explained by the breakdown in relations between the Plaintiffs and their advocates. Once the relationship was restored, the Plaintiffs' advocates acted promptly to prepare the case for trial. There was no evidence that a fair trial would no longer be possible or that the Defendants would suffer prejudice. Accordingly, the court held that it would not be just to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and refused the application for dismissal.

Court Disposition

Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed; costs awarded to 2nd Defendant.

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 19th July 2012 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application assessed at KShs 10,000 awarded to the 2nd Defendant, payable within 21 days.