[2005] KEHC 2666 (KLR)
The court found that although there was delay in prosecuting the suit, the Plaintiff had not entirely abandoned the matter. The absence of a regular judge in Embu until September 2004 and evidence of attempts to fix hearing dates constituted sufficient explanation for the delay. The court exercised its discretion...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2666 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joses M’Muga (Suing as the Administrator of the estate of Lenah Karimi Joses – Deceased); Defendant: Marksman Concrete Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 21 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed; costs awarded to the Defendant.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Joses M’Muga (Suing as the Administrator of the estate of Lenah Karimi Joses – Deceased)
Plaintiff
Marksman Concrete 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 under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the delay in setting the suit down for hearing was excusable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there was delay in prosecuting the suit, the Plaintiff had not entirely abandoned the matter. The absence of a regular judge in Embu until September 2004 and evidence of attempts to fix hearing dates constituted sufficient explanation for the delay. The court exercised its discretion not to dismiss the suit, emphasizing that while the Plaintiff's efforts were insufficient, they were not nonexistent. The application for dismissal was therefore denied, but costs were awarded to the Defendant to signal that delay is not without consequence.
Court Disposition
Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed; costs awarded to the Defendant.
Orders
- The application for dismissal for want of prosecution is dismissed.
- Costs of the application to be paid to the Defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE 21 OF 2000JOSES M’MUGA (Suing as the Administrator of the estate of LENAH KARIMI JOSES – DECEASED) ……. PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT VERSUS MARKSMAN CONCRETE LIMITED ……….. DEFENDANT/APPLICANTRULING 1. The Defendant herein seeks Orders that the suit herein be dismissed for want of Prosecution Under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. The ground in support is that the Plaintiff has since the pleadings closed in 2002 taken no steps at all to have the suit set down for hearing. It would appear, so the Defendant states in his Supporting Affidavit, that the Plaintiff has lost interest and yet the Defendant is anxious to have matter behind it.
3. The Plaintiff in reply argues that the Court file disappeared soon after the Defence was filed and when it was traced in March 2004, the Court Diary was full and no dates could be given.
4. I would have been happy to dismiss the suit but I am alive to the fact that the High Court in Embu had no regular Judge until September 2004. I have heard the Plaintiff and inspite of the delay in fixing the matter for hearing, he is still interested in the suit. I also note that some letters were sent to Advocates previously acting for the Plaintiff to fix hearing dates. It cannot be said that nothing was done in three years. Something was done albeit not enough.
5. I shall dismiss the Application but costs thereof shall be paid to the Applicant as a way of telling the Plaintiff that the delay is costly but discretion has swung his way.
Orders accordingly.
Read in Open Court this 24th day of February 2005
I. LENAOLA JUDGE
In the presence of;
Mr. Muchiri for Defendant N/A for Plaintiff
I. LENAOLA JUDGE