[2009] KEHC 1261 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 1261 (KLR)

The court found that there had been inordinate delay by the 3rd plaintiff in prosecuting the suit, with no reasonable excuse advanced for such delay. The correspondence exhibited did not justify the failure to set the suit down for hearing since 24/4/2007. The court concluded that the 3rd plaintiff had lost interest...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 1261 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: James Kimathi (t/a K & M Architects); Plaintiff: M.A. Ooro & Others; Plaintiff: Kisa & Partners Consulting Engineers Ltd.; Defendant: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd.
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 64 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Application allowed; suit by 3rd plaintiff dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Inordinate Delay, Special Damages Claim, Withdrawal of Suit
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Inordinate Delay Special Damages Claim Withdrawal of 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kimathi (t/a K & M Architects)

Plaintiff

M.A. Ooro & Others

Plaintiff

Kisa & Partners Consulting Engineers Ltd.

Plaintiff

Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the 3rd plaintiff's suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in setting down the suit for hearing is excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant has suffered prejudice as a result of the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there had been inordinate delay by the 3rd plaintiff in prosecuting the suit, with no reasonable excuse advanced for such delay. The correspondence exhibited did not justify the failure to set the suit down for hearing since 24/4/2007. The court concluded that the 3rd plaintiff had lost interest in the suit, and the delay prejudiced the defendant. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application and dismissed the 3rd plaintiff's suit for want of prosecution, awarding costs to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; suit by 3rd plaintiff dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.

Orders

  • The suit by the 3rd plaintiff is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.