[2016] KEHC 5283 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over a year since 4th June 2014. The Plaintiff's advocate did not oppose the application for dismissal, nor did they seek leave to respond. Instead, the only action taken was to seek leave to cease acting for the Plaintiff,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5283 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jane Wanja Miriti t/a Sharlimon Foods; Defendant: Bank of Africa Kenya Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 237 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, 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
Jane Wanja Miriti t/a Sharlimon Foods
Plaintiff
Bank of Africa Kenya Limited
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 inordinate and inexcusable delay by the Plaintiff.
- 2 Whether costs should be awarded to the Defendant upon dismissal of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over a year since 4th June 2014. The Plaintiff's advocate did not oppose the application for dismissal, nor did they seek leave to respond. Instead, the only action taken was to seek leave to cease acting for the Plaintiff, indicating a lack of interest in the suit. The court concluded that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and that the Plaintiff was not interested in prosecuting the matter. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to allow the Defendant's application and dismissed the suit for want of prosecution, with costs to the Defendant.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The Defendant’s application dated 29th July 2015 seeking dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution is allowed as prayed.
- The Plaintiff’s suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL & ADMIRALTY DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 237 OF 2012
JANE WANJA MIRITI T/A SHARLIMON FOODS .............PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BANK OF AFRICA KENYA LIMITED .............................. DEFENDANT
____________________________________________________________________
RULING OF THE COURT
The Notice of Motion application before the court is dated 29th July 2015, filed herein on 31st July 2015 by the Defendant. The application seeks an order that the Plaintiff’s suit herein be dismissed with costs for want of prosecution and that the costs of this application be borne by the Plaintiff/Respondent.
The application is premised on the grounds that the Plaintiff has not taken any steps to set down the suit for hearing since 4th June 2014, a period of over one year, and that the said delay is inordinate, unreasonable and inexcusable and that in the interest of justice litigation must come to an end.
The application is not opposed. It was served upon the Plaintiff’s advocate M/s Mohamed Madhani & Co. Advocates seven (7) months ago when the application was filed. Even the hearing notice of the application for hearing on 8th March 2016 was served upon the said advocate and they receive it on 1st February 2016. Affidavit of service to the effect was filed herein on 3rd February 2016.
Instead of replying to the application, the Plaintiff’s advocate herein have only filed a yet to be heard application dated 19th October 2015 for leave to cease acting for the Plaintiff. When this application came up for hearing on 8th March 2016 Mr. Mbugua, Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that they had not filed their reply and so the application was not opposed. Counsel did not even ask for leave to file a reply to the application.
I have carefully considered the application. It is true that the matter was last in court on 21st February 2014 for pre-trial, but even then it was listed by mistake. However, what is of greater concern to this court is that the Plaintiff’s counsel does not care whether or not the suit is dismissed. They have not replied to the application and have also not sought leave to respond. What they are seeking is the leave to cease acting for the Plaintiff. This then must mean that the Plaintiff is herself not intereste in the suit. I will allow the application as prayed as it is not opposed, and it is to noted that this suit is dismissed while the Plaintiff is fully represented by her advocate on record.
Pursuant to the foregoing the Defendant’s application herein dated 29th July 2015 seeking the dismissal of the suit herein for want of prosecution is allowed as prayed.
Orders accordingly.
READ, DELIVERED AND DATED, AT NAIROBI
THIS 28th DAY OF APRIL 2016.
E. K. O. OGOLA
JUDGE
Ruling Read in open court in the presence of:
Mr. Mbugua for Plaintiff
M/s Ogula for Defendant
Teresia – Court Clerk