[2018] KEHC 553 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any meaningful steps to prosecute the suit for over six years since its filing, and had not complied with procedural requirements such as Order II. The explanation provided, namely ongoing negotiations and partial settlement, was deemed insufficient to justify...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 553 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Kariuki Kirui; Defendant: Stanley Githu Kibicho
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 430 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Defamation, Libel, Delay in Prosecution
- 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
John Kariuki Kirui
Plaintiff
Stanley Githu Kibicho
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction for over six years.
- 2 Whether ongoing negotiations or partial settlement justified the delay in prosecuting the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any meaningful steps to prosecute the suit for over six years since its filing, and had not complied with procedural requirements such as Order II. The explanation provided, namely ongoing negotiations and partial settlement, was deemed insufficient to justify the prolonged delay. The court held that there was no good reason for the inaction and that the interests of justice required the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO.430 OF 2012
JOHN KARIUKI KIRUI....................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
STANLEY GITHU KIBICHO........................................DEFENDANT
RULING
The matter herein was on the 11th day of October, 2018 listed for Notice to Show Cause, why it should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
In response to the Notice, both in this matter and Civil Suit No. 429/2012, Counsel for the plaintiff filed an affidavit sworn on 12th April 2018, by one Kibe Mungai Advocate.
In the said affidavit, he avers that parties to the two suits were negotiating an out of court settlement, as recently as January, 2018. That, at the time of filing the suits, the plaintiffs had been excommunicated as elders of Presbyterian Church of East Africa (hereinafter referred to as P.C.E.A) but as a result of negotiations between the parties in both matters, the plaintiffs were admitted back into the church as elders.
It is averred that, this notwithstanding, they are still eager to prosecute the suit as the said actions by the defendant defamed their character and reputation and neither the defendants nor the church has apologized nor compensated them for the libelous nature of their actions, in not only ex-communicating them but also advertising it in the public notice in the Daily Nation edition of the 21st June, 2012.
That, the actions of the defendant besmirched the reputation of the plaintiffs and they are still aggrieved by these actions and are desirous of seeking the prosecution of the suits. It was deponed that the defendant will not suffer any prejudice if the matters are heard to their conclusion.
The court has considered the affidavit filed herein, Sin response to the notice to show cause. The plaints in 430/12 and 429/2012 were filed on 19th October 2012. Since then, no action has been taken in any of the two matters until they were listed for Notice to show cause. The parties have not even complied with Order II. It is more than six years since the matters were filed and nothing much has been done.
Having read the affidavit in response to the Notice to Show cause, I do not see any good reason why the matters have not been prosecuted. In the premises, they are both dismissed for want of prosecution.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 22nd day of November, 2018
........................
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
...............................For the Plaintiff
............................For the Defendant