[2018] KEHC 544 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 544 (KLR)

The court found that the delay in prosecuting the suit was occasioned by the moratorium imposed on Blue Shield Insurance Company, which was the insurer of the subject motor vehicle. The court accepted the explanation provided by the plaintiff's counsel that the legal position regarding the moratorium has since...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 544 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joan Kuloba; Defendant: Asman Achando Watako; Defendant: Eldoret Express Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 116 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Suit not dismissed; plaintiff granted 90 days to prosecute.
Judges
LM Njuguna
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Moratorium on Insurer, Delay in Prosecution, Notice to Show Cause
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Moratorium on Insurer Delay in Prosecution Notice to Show Cause

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

Joan Kuloba

Plaintiff

Asman Achando Watako

Defendant

Eldoret Express Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to delay.
  2. 2 Whether the moratorium on Blue Shield Insurance Company justified the delay in prosecuting the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is now ready to prosecute the matter to conclusion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in prosecuting the suit was occasioned by the moratorium imposed on Blue Shield Insurance Company, which was the insurer of the subject motor vehicle. The court accepted the explanation provided by the plaintiff's counsel that the legal position regarding the moratorium has since changed, enabling the plaintiff to proceed. In the interest of justice, and considering the age of the matter, the court exercised its discretion not to dismiss the suit but ordered that it be prosecuted within 90 days from the date of the ruling, failing which it would stand dismissed.

Court Disposition

Suit not dismissed; plaintiff granted 90 days to prosecute.

Orders

  • The suit shall be prosecuted within 90 days from the date of this ruling.
  • If the suit is not prosecuted within 90 days, it shall stand dismissed.