[2001] KEHC 763 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any meaningful steps to prosecute the suit since its last adjournment in October 1999. The plaintiff failed to comply with Order X Rule 11A(1) by not filing the required list of documents and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The correspondence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 763 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Holy Ghost Church of East Africa; Defendant: David Kabiru alia Mariko Kabiru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1088 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant
- Judges
- AM Githinji
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Adjournment of Suit
- 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
Holy Ghost Church of East Africa
Plaintiff
David Kabiru alia Mariko Kabiru
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 under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has provided sufficient reason for the delay in prosecuting the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any meaningful steps to prosecute the suit since its last adjournment in October 1999. The plaintiff failed to comply with Order X Rule 11A(1) by not filing the required list of documents and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The correspondence from the plaintiff's officials indicated a lack of commitment to proceed with the case, as they were still seeking to obtain documents and redefine their objectives. The court concluded that allowing the suit to remain pending would not resolve the underlying dispute and that the plaintiff's inaction justified dismissal for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the application was...
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant
Orders
- The application for dismissal for want of prosecution is allowed.
- The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 1088 OF 1997
HOLY GHOST CHURCH OF EAST AFRICA…………….…PLAINTIFF VERSUS DAVID KABIRU ALIA MARIKO KABIRU………………DEFENDANT
RULING
This is the defendant’s application for an order that plaintiff’s suit be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order XVI Rule 5 Civil Procedure Rules.
I have considered the contents of the replying affidavits and Counsels submissions. On 15. 10. 98 plaintiffs counsel applied for adjournment of the suit on the ground that plaintiff had left all vital documents. Suit was last listed for hearing on 12. 10. 99 when it was adjourned generally since then plaintiffs have not taken any steps to prosecuted the suit. Defendant has filed its list of documents in accordance with order X Rule 11 A(1) of Civil Procedure Rules. Plaintiff has not complied with that Rule. The letter dated 14/12/2000 annexed to the replying affidavit of Mr. Kameru show that the current officials of the plaintiff do not have documents relating to the dispute. That perhaps explains why plaintiff has not complied with order X Rule II A (1) of Civil Procedure Rules. How does plaintiff intend to proceed in this case?
The same letter further shows that the present officials of plaintiff intend after getting Photostat copies of the documents from plaintiffs “lawyers” to redefine” their goals and objectives of this disputes. That letters does not show commitment to prosecute the suit. Lastly, I note that this dispute arises because defendant allegedly registered a splinter group of the plaintiff church. I do not think that this suit will solve the underlying problem.
It is my view that this suit should not be allowed to remain pending any longer.
As plaintiff has not taken steps since November to prosecute the suit and as plaintiff has not given any good reason for delay and for other reasons stated above I allow the application with costs and dismiss the suit with costs as prayed.
E. M. Githinji
Judge
17. 7.2001
Mr. Kamere present Mr. Kariuki holding brief for Mr Wanjau present