[2008] KEHC 3835 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's failure to file its bundle of documents was in contempt of previous court orders and that the application for adjournment was not made in good faith. The court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the former advocates of the defendants had no bearing on the present...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3835 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Industrial Plant E.A. Limited (In receivership); Defendant: Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited; Defendant: Joint Receivers and Managers of Industrial Plant E.A. Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 532 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Adjournment
- Outcome
- application for adjournment disallowed; hearing to proceed as scheduled
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment of Hearing, Non Compliance With Court Orders, Change of Advocates, Abuse of Process
- 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
Industrial Plant E.A. Limited (In receivership)
Plaintiff
Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited
Defendant
Joint Receivers and Managers of Industrial Plant E.A. Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Adjournment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's failure to file its bundle of documents justifies an adjournment of the hearing.
- 2 Whether the pending suit against the former advocates of the defendants is a valid ground to delay the hearing of the present suit.
- 3 Whether the withdrawal of the former advocates for the defendants removes any prejudice alleged by the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's failure to file its bundle of documents was in contempt of previous court orders and that the application for adjournment was not made in good faith. The court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the former advocates of the defendants had no bearing on the present proceedings, especially since the said advocates had withdrawn from acting for the defendants. The court concluded that the plaintiff's actions were intended to delay the hearing of the case and that there was no justifiable reason to grant an adjournment. Accordingly, the application for adjournment was disallowed and the hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.
Court Disposition
application for adjournment disallowed; hearing to proceed as scheduled
Orders
- The application for adjournment is disallowed.
- The hearing shall proceed as scheduled.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Case 532 of 2006
INDUSTRIAL PLANT E.A. LIMITED(In receivership)……..PLAINTIFF
- VERSUS –
STANBIC BANK KENYA LIMITED…....................……1ST DEFENDANT
Joint Receivers and Managers of
INDUSTRIAL PLANT E.A. LIMITED…...................….2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This is a very long and protracted matter. The parties to this suit have filed multiple applications seeking one prayer or the other. When the parties appeared before this court on 17th June 2008 for yet another application, this court was of the view that the matters in dispute ought to be heard and determined in a hearing in a full trial. The parties did agree by consent to conclude all preliminary issues, including discovery so that this case could be heard on the scheduled dates of 24th and 30th July 2008. The parties agreed to file their bundle of documents within twenty one (21) days of the said 17th June 2008. They later appeared before this court on the 21st July 2008 and confirmed to the court that the hearing of the case would proceed today, the 30th July 2008.
On perusal of the file in preparation of the hearing of this case, I noted that it was only the defendants who had filed their bundle of documents. In contravention and contempt of the orders of this court, the plaintiff failed to file their list of documents. Now the plaintiff is seeking an adjournment on the basis that they had filed suit against the advocate who was previously on record for the defendants seeking certain reliefs which goes to the root of the reliefs sought in this case. The firm of Walker Kontos & Company Advocates who were previously on record, upon being notified of the plaintiff’s objection to their appearing for the defendants, did not seek to continue acting for the defendants. Instead, the firm of Oraro & Company Advocates were appointed to act for the defendants. If the plaintiff’s concern was genuine, that the said firm’s acting for the defendants would be prejudicial to the conduct of their case, then the fact that the firm of Walker Kontos & Company Advocates had ceased acting for the defendants can no longer be an issue preventing the hearing of this case.
The plaintiff was aggrieved by the conduct of the said firm of Walker Kontos Advocates. They have, rightly in my view, filed suit against the said firm. They will pursue their reliefs against the said firm in the said suit. The fact that the said suit has been filed does not have any bearing at all in the determination whether this suit should be heard or not. In view of the history of this case, it is clear that the plaintiff specifically filed the suit against the former advocates of the defendants to forestall the hearing of this suit. Having ruled that the pending of the suit against the firm of Walker Kontos & Company Advocates has no bearing to this case, and since the said firm of advocates has withdrawn from acting for defendants, I see no good reason why this suit cannot proceed to hearing as earlier scheduled. The application for adjournment is disallowed. The hearing shall proceed as scheduled.
DATED at NAIROBI this 30th day of July 2008.
L. KIMARU
JUDGE