[2009] KEHC 1369 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 1369 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs, after obtaining restraining orders in June 2004, failed to take any further steps to prosecute their suit for over five years. This inaction constituted inordinate and inexcusable delay. The court held that such delay is prejudicial to the defendants, particularly in land matters where the property may change hands, making a fair trial impossible. The plaintiffs did not contest the application, and the evidence and submissions of the 2nd defendant remained uncontroverted. The court concluded that there was every justification to grant the application and dismissed the suit for want of prosecution, with costs to the defendants.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 1369 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Julius Kiio Mukeku; Plaintiff: Daniel Mwololo Makau; Plaintiff: Edward Mutinda Ndetai; Defendant: Aloice Mwaiwa Muia; Defendant: Makueni County Council
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
5 October 2009
Case Number
Civil Case 365 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Injunctions, Land Trespass
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Injunctions Land Trespass

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Kiio Mukeku

Plaintiff

Daniel Mwololo Makau

Plaintiff

Edward Mutinda Ndetai

Plaintiff

Aloice Mwaiwa Muia

Defendant

Makueni County Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit prejudices the defendants and affects the possibility of a fair trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs, after obtaining restraining orders in June 2004, failed to take any further steps to prosecute their suit for over five years. This inaction constituted inordinate and inexcusable delay. The court held that such delay is prejudicial to the defendants, particularly in land matters where the property may change hands, making a fair trial impossible. The plaintiffs did not contest the application, and the evidence and submissions of the 2nd defendant remained uncontroverted. The court concluded that there was every justification to grant the application and dismissed the suit for want of prosecution, with costs to the defendants.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Costs awarded to the defendants.