[2007] KEHC 2512 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 2512 (KLR)

The court found that, although there had been delay in the prosecution of the suit by the Plaintiffs, the circumstances warranted giving them a further opportunity to demonstrate their intention to proceed with the matter. The court exercised its discretion against dismissal at this stage, emphasizing that justice...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] KEHC 2512 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: James Samuel Kinyanjui; Plaintiff: Torito Roses Limited; Defendant: Standard Chartered Bank (K) Ltd.; Defendant: Scem Farm Management Limited; Defendant: The Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 93 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; Plaintiffs to pay costs to 3rd Defendant; 1st and 2nd Defendants to bear own costs; liberty to apply granted to 3rd Defendant.
Judges
JM Khamoni
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Costs Award

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Samuel Kinyanjui

Plaintiff

Torito Roses Limited

Plaintiff

Standard Chartered Bank (K) Ltd.

Defendant

Scem Farm Management Limited

Defendant

The Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to delay by the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted more time to prosecute the suit.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the notice of motion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although there had been delay in the prosecution of the suit by the Plaintiffs, the circumstances warranted giving them a further opportunity to demonstrate their intention to proceed with the matter. The court exercised its discretion against dismissal at this stage, emphasizing that justice would be better served by allowing the Plaintiffs more time rather than terminating the suit prematurely. However, the Plaintiffs were penalized in costs for causing the application to be filed. The 3rd Defendant was granted liberty to apply again should further delay occur.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; Plaintiffs to pay costs to 3rd Defendant; 1st and 2nd Defendants to bear own costs; liberty to apply granted to 3rd Defendant.

Orders

  • The 3rd Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 7th May 2007 is dismissed.
  • The Plaintiffs shall pay the costs of this Notice of Motion to the 3rd Defendant.