[2018] KEHC 3976 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 3976 (KLR)

The court found that although there had been inordinate delay in prosecuting the suit, the plaintiff had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, citing related proceedings and an intention to consolidate with another suit involving similar parties and issues. The court held that the interests of justice...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 3976 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jimi Wanjigi; Defendant: Tony Gachoka; Defendant: The Standard Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 269 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Inordinate Delay, Defamation, Amendment of Pleadings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Inordinate Delay Defamation Amendment of Pleadings

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jimi Wanjigi

Plaintiff

Tony Gachoka

Defendant

The Standard Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in prosecuting the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require the suit to be heard on its merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there had been inordinate delay in prosecuting the suit, the plaintiff had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, citing related proceedings and an intention to consolidate with another suit involving similar parties and issues. The court held that the interests of justice would be better served by allowing the suit to proceed to hearing on its merits rather than dismissing it for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the application for dismissal was dismissed, with costs to abide the outcome of the suit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 8th September, 2017 seeking dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the suit.