[2010] KEHC 144 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since September 2007, had failed to respond to the application for dismissal, and did not attend the hearing despite being duly served. This conduct demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting the suit. The court held that it would...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 144 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James Mutua Mwanzia; Defendant: Timothy Nzomo; Defendant: Ngwili Kyalo Maundu; Defendant: Kyanzavi Farmers Co. Ltd.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 355 of 2007
- 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
- CM Njagi
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Laches, Costs Award, Case Management
- 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
James Mutua Mwanzia
Plaintiff
Timothy Nzomo
Defendant
Ngwili Kyalo Maundu
Defendant
Kyanzavi Farmers Co. Ltd.
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the plaintiffs' inaction.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs demonstrated any interest in prosecuting the suit.
- 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since September 2007, had failed to respond to the application for dismissal, and did not attend the hearing despite being duly served. This conduct demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting the suit. The court held that it would be unjust to keep the defendant in suspense due to the plaintiffs' inaction and that there must be an end to litigation. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant
Orders
- This suit is hereby dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
- The Plaintiff will also meet the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION)
CIVIL CASE NO. 355 OF 2007
JAMES MUTUA MWANZIA………………………....... 1ST PLAINTIFF
TIMOTHY NZOMO…………………………...…..…..2ND DEFENDANT
NGWILI KYALO MAUNDU………………………….3RD DEFENDANT
VERSUS
KYANZAVI FARMERS CO. LTD. …………………...... DEFENDANT
RULING
By this application, the Defendant applies from the court orders that this Honourable court be pleased to dismiss this suit for want of prosecution and also prays for the costs of the application to be provided for. The application is brought by a Notice of Motion dated 1st November, 2010, and is made under Order XVI Rule 5 (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Order L Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of STEPHEN NJOROGE GIKERA, the Advocate having the conduct of this matter on behalf of the Defendant herein, and is based on the following grounds –
That the Plaintiffs/Respondents are not interested in the above matter anymore.
That the Plaintiffs/Respondents have not taken any step to have this matter dealt with and disposed of expeditiously.
That it is not fair and in the interests of justice for the Defendant/Applicant to be kept in darkness due to laxity and disinterest in this matter on the part of the Plaintiff.
That the Plaintiffs are not serious, keen enough and/or interested in the suit and it is only fair and just that the same be dismissed with costs
That the Plaintiffs have slept on their right and as such are guilty of laches.
That there must be an end to litigation.
When the matter came for hearing on 29th November, 2010, Mr Gikera appeared for the applicant but there was no appearance for the Defendant. The court record shows that the Plaintiff’s Advocates were duly served on 10th November, 2010. However, they filed neither a replying affidavit nor grounds of opposition; nor did thy attend court for hearing on the material date. Being satisfied that they were served in sufficient time to attend court but declined to do so, the court opted to proceed exparte.
Having considered the application and Mr Gikera’s submissions, I note from the record that this matter was last in court on 21st September, 2007, when the court delivered a ruling dismissing an application for an interlocutory injunction against the Defendant. Since the date of that ruling, it appears that the Plaintiff lost interest in the case. That lack of interest could not have been better demonstrated than by the Plaintiff’s failure to file any replying affidavit or grounds of opposition to the application for dismissal of the suit, and further by failing to attend court on the hearing date.
For the above reasons, I agree with Mr Gikera for the Applicant, that the Plaintiff/Respondent is not interested in prosecuting this suit. The application therefore succeeds and I accordingly make the following orders –
This suit is hereby dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
The Plaintiff will also meet the costs of this application.
Datedand Delivered at Nairobi this 14th day of December,
L NJAGI
JUDGE