[2003] KEHC 628 (KLR)
The court held that the primary function of dismissing suits for want of prosecution is to prevent abuse of the judicial process and to ensure that litigation does not remain dormant to the detriment of justice. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide any explanation for the prolonged inaction and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KEHC 628 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Justine Gitonga Mate; Defendant: Mwoni Housing Co-operative Society Ltd & Another
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 532 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RCN Kuloba
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Litigation, Abuse of Process
- 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
Justine Gitonga Mate
Plaintiff
Mwoni Housing Co-operative Society Ltd & Another
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 inaction by the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether technical objections regarding the status of the advocate can prevent dismissal for want of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the primary function of dismissing suits for want of prosecution is to prevent abuse of the judicial process and to ensure that litigation does not remain dormant to the detriment of justice. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide any explanation for the prolonged inaction and instead relied on a technical objection regarding the advocate's practicing certificate. The court determined that such technicalities do not override the need to address abuse of process and that the interests of justice require the dismissal of suits that are not diligently prosecuted. Accordingly, the application to prevent dismissal was found to lack merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed for want of merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 532 OF 2000
JUSTINE GITONGA MATE ………………………….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MWONI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
LTD & ANOTHER ………………………………………. DEFENDANT
RULING
Dismissal of suits for want of prosecution has as one of its usefulness, the object of getting rid of litigation which merely lies fallow with the likely prejudice which may flow from delays, such as loss of memories and documents, unavailability of witnesses, and increase in costs. It also serves to clear courts of redundant records which merely fill space and confuse judicial returns, and paint a negative picture of the working of the courts for faults of parties which the public never gets to know of as they condemn the slow pace of the civil justice system, in ignorance of the truth that the sluggish progress of litigation is mostly due to parties’ tardiness and recalcintrance in their own causes.
This being the true function of dismissal of suits for want of prosecution, once it is not disputed that the party concerned is abusing the judicial process by filing a case for emrely letting it lie in the court registry and archives, it does not matter who brings that fact to the notice of the court. Even a court clerk can bring up the file to the court for dismissal of suit. Even an advocate without a practicing certificate may help the court in this motion they do so under another provision of the Rules. Technicality has no place here. Acting without holding a current valid practicing certificate may found the necessary disciplinary process against the advocate concerned; but it would not nullify or render void a judicial act prompted to such a person where such prompting serves the interests of justice and results in the protection of the court against its abuse or abuse of the legal process.
For these reasons, I expected the applicants to come to the court to plead their reasons for not prosecuting their suit; but instead of them explaining their inaction and lack of diligence, they come to cling on a barren technicality as if they had a statutory or inherent and inalienable right to file a suit and then fall to sleep for months or years as they please.
Such an approach works against the principle that justice delayed is justice denied.
The application is lacking in merit. It is dismissed. Orders accordingly. This Ruling is madeex tempore.
R. KULOBA
JUDGE
2. 7.2003