[2010] KEHC 1922 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit for over 20 months since the last court appearance, and no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. The chronology of events demonstrated repeated adjournments and failure by the plaintiff to comply with court orders, including payment...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1922 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jairus Juma Wafula; Defendant: Barasa Makhanu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 32 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- CA Ombija
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Adjournment of Hearing, Costs Award
- 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
Jairus Juma Wafula
Plaintiff
Barasa Makhanu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Dismiss 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 delay in setting down the suit for hearing is prejudicial to the defendant.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff has lost interest in prosecuting the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit for over 20 months since the last court appearance, and no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. The chronology of events demonstrated repeated adjournments and failure by the plaintiff to comply with court orders, including payment of adjournment fees. The court concluded that the plaintiff had lost interest in the suit, and the delay was prejudicial to the defendant. Accordingly, the application to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution was allowed, and the suit was struck out with costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is struck out for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
Civil Case 32 of 2006
JAIRUS JUMA WAFULA ………………………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BARASA MAKHANU …………………………………….DEFENDANT
RULING
By a notice of Motion dated 22nd October, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of order XVI rule 5(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicantseeks orders:-
1. THATthis honourable court be pleased to dismiss this suit for want prosecution.
2. THATcosts be borne by the plaintiff/respondent.
The application is based on the grounds:-
(i)THATit is over 3 months since the plaintiff set down the suit for hearing.
(ii)THATthe suit was last in court on 12/11/2007.
(iii)THAT the pendency of this suit is prejudicial to the applicant
(iv)THATthe plaintiffs have lost interest in the suit.
The application is predicted upon the annexed affidavit of Barasa Makhanu sworn on this 22nd day of October, 2009.
It was contended on behalf of the applicant, that this matter was last in court on the 12th day of November, 2007. That it is now over 20 months since, yet the plaintiff has failed to set down the suit for hearing. That the delay is prejudicial to the defendant’s interest hence this application.
I have perused the court record and found as a fact.
(i)The plaint was filed on 16th March, 2006
(ii)Memorandum of appearance wasentered on 12th April, 2006.
(iii)Defence was filed in early April 2006.
(iv)Reply to defence was filed on 12th May, 2006.
(v)On 5th April, 2007 the application by way of Notice of Motion dated 22nd October, 2006 was listed for hearing on 10th July, 2007.
(vi)On 10th July, 2007 Mr. Wambua for the defendant sought for an adjournment on the grounds that it skipped his attention that the replying affidavit and grounds of opposition in respect of the matter was filed in wrong court file.
Mr Saenyi,for the defendant in his rejoinder contended that the hearing date was taken by consent yet the defendant was not ready.Adjournment was granted subject to payment of costs.
(vii)On 15th October, 2007 Mr. Wambua again sought an adjournment on the grounds that there was an out of court settlement. That negotiation were on-going.On that note the application dated 24th October, 2006 was thenstood over to 12th November, 2007 to ascertain if the plaintiff ‘s advocate had filed their application tocease acting.
(viii)On 12th November, 2007 the case could not proceed because the plaintiff had not paid the court adjournment fees as ordered on 15/10/2007.
(ix)On 3rd February, 2010 it transpired that there wasa replying affidavit and grounds of opposition to resist the application.
That foregoing is a correct chronology of events that preceded the filing of the application herein to dismiss the entire suit.
Order XVI Rule 2(1) provides:
“In any suit in which no application has been made or step taken by either party for one year, the court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed, and if cause is not shown to its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit”.
In the disclosed circumstances of this case there is ample evidence that the plaintiff has lost interest in this case.
Therefore no causehas been shown to me why the suit should be spared.Accordingly, this application succeeds.The up-shot is that the suit is struck out with costs to the defendant.
Dated and delivered at Kitale this 2nd day of March,2010
N R OMBIJA
JUDGE
Mr. Wasike for Mr. Wafula for applicant
N/A for respondent.