[2005] KEHC 1495 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 1495 (KLR)

Order 24 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules is inapplicable where the previous suit was struck out by the court and not discontinued by the plaintiff. In this case, the previous suit between the same parties and on the same cause of action was struck out, not discontinued. Therefore, the defendant's application for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 1495 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ishmael Kagunyi Thande; Defendant: Housing Finance Company of Kenya Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 336 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Costs of Discontinued Suit, Order 24 Rule 4, Striking Out, Subsequent Suit
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Costs of Discontinued Suit Order 24 Rule 4 Striking Out Subsequent Suit

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

Ishmael Kagunyi Thande

Plaintiff

Housing Finance Company of Kenya Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether Order 24 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies where the previous suit was struck out rather than discontinued.
  2. 2 Whether the present suit should be stayed pending payment of costs from the previous suit.

Ratio Decidendi

Order 24 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules is inapplicable where the previous suit was struck out by the court and not discontinued by the plaintiff. In this case, the previous suit between the same parties and on the same cause of action was struck out, not discontinued. Therefore, the defendant's application for a stay of the present suit pending payment of costs under this rule cannot succeed. Additionally, the court was informed that the costs in the previous suit have already been paid. As a result, there is no basis for granting the stay sought by the defendant, and the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The defendant's application by notice of motion dated 25th June, 2004 is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.