[2010] KEHC 4054 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any serious steps to prosecute the suit since its filing in 1999, and no good reasons were provided for the prolonged delay. The court held that the continued pendency of the suit caused unnecessary anxiety to the defendants. Applying Order L rule 16(3) of the Civil...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 4054 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jonathan Maina Muthui alias Ithenya; Defendant: Elias Wanjiku Runo; Defendant: Mary Nyambura Runo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 240 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 2nd defendant.
- 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
Jonathan Maina Muthui alias Ithenya
Plaintiff
Elias Wanjiku Runo
Defendant
Mary Nyambura Runo
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 delay by the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to costs upon dismissal of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any serious steps to prosecute the suit since its filing in 1999, and no good reasons were provided for the prolonged delay. The court held that the continued pendency of the suit caused unnecessary anxiety to the defendants. Applying Order L rule 16(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court concluded that the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution, with costs awarded to the 2nd defendant.
Court Disposition
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 2nd defendant.
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the 2nd defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Civil Case 240 of 1999
JONATHAN MAINA MUTHUI
alias ITHENYA…………………..……………..PLAINTIFF
Versus
ELIAS WANJIKU RUNO………………1ST DEFENDANT
MARY NYAMBURA RUNO…………..2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The 2nd defendant herein, Mary Nyambura Runo, applied to have this suit to be dismissed for want of prosecution in the motion dated 15th September 2009. she swore an affidavit in support of the application. When the motion came up for interpartes hearing, Mr. Muthui, learned advocate for the plaintiff admitted having been served with the motion. The learned advocate stated that he had lost contact of the plaintiff and that is why he did not file any response. Pursuant to the provisions of order L rule 16(3) of the Civil Procedure Rule the 2nd defendant was allowed to proceed with the hearing of the motion exparte.
I have considered the oral submission of Mr. Mindo, learned advocate for the 2nd defendant. I have also considered the grounds set out on the face of the motion and the facts deponed in the supporting affidavit of Mary Nyambura Runo. There is no doubt that this suit was filed in 1999. The record shows that the plaintiff has not taken any serious steps to have the suit listed for hearing. No good reasons have been shown as to why the suit has not been prosecuted for more than a decade. I am convinced that the pendancy of any suit will always cause anxiety on the part of the defendant. For the above reason I hereby allow the motion by dismissing the suit for want of prosecution with costs to the 2nd defendant.
Dated and delivered this 13th day of January 2010.
J.K. SERGON
JUDGE
N/A for parties.
J.K. SERGON
JUDGE