[2018] KEHC 4024 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant claimed to have taken steps to prosecute the suit, the court record did not reflect any court appearance since the suit was filed. However, there was also no evidence that the dismissal notice was served on the applicant. In the absence of such service, and considering the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 4024 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kamconsult Limited; Respondent: Ndungu Njoroge & Kwach Advocates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 267 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
- Outcome
- Application allowed; suit reinstated subject to conditions.
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Review of Court Orders
- 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
Kamconsult Limited
Plaintiff
Ndungu Njoroge & Kwach Advocates
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex parte dismissal of the plaintiff's suit should be reviewed and set aside.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has shown sufficient cause for reinstatement of the suit.
- 3 Whether the dismissal notice was properly served on the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant claimed to have taken steps to prosecute the suit, the court record did not reflect any court appearance since the suit was filed. However, there was also no evidence that the dismissal notice was served on the applicant. In the absence of such service, and considering the affidavit evidence of attempts to move the suit forward, the court was satisfied that sufficient cause had been shown to set aside the ex parte dismissal and reinstate the suit. The court therefore allowed the application, subject to compliance with pre-trial procedures and timely setting of a hearing date.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; suit reinstated subject to conditions.
Orders
- The ex parte dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on 9th April, 2015 is reviewed and set aside.
- The suit is reinstated and parties are to exchange documents and comply with pre-trial procedures.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 267 OF 2008
KAMCONSULT LIMITED.................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NDUNGU NJOROGE & KWACH ADVOCATES........RESPONDENT
Consolidated with
(HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 268 OF 2008)
RULING
1. The application dated 22nd September, 2015 seeks orders that:
1. The exparte dismissal of the Plaintiffs suit on 9th April, 2015 be reviewed and set aside
2. The suit be reinstated and set down for the hearing forthwith.
3. Costs be in the cause.
2. It is stated in the grounds and the affidavit in support of the application that by the time the suit herein was dismissed, the Applicant had on numerous dates taken steps to prosecute the suit. The delay in prosecuting the suit is blamed on the delay in arranging the files in the registry following the re-location of the High Court from the Central Business District to the current location in Milimani. The Applicant expressed shock at the dismissal of the suit and stated that the file has not been dormant for more than one year.
3. The application is opposed. In the replying affidavit, the Respondent gave a chronology of the steps taken herein and stated that there is no letter to the Deputy Registrar to demonstrate that the court file was missing. That there are no grounds to warrant a review of the orders herein. That in any event, the Applicant ought to have been aware that the matter had been listed for dismissal.
4. The Applicant filed a further affidavit and reiterated that the court file was not available to their side. It is stated that it appears that the Respondent had access to the court file and that the dismissal notice was not served on the Applicant.
5. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. I have considered the said submissions.
6. Order 17 rule 2 Notice to show cause why suit should not be dismissed.
1. In any suit in which no application has been made or step taken by either party for one year, the court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed, and if cause is not shown to its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit.
2. If cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court it may make such orders as it thinks fit to obtain expeditious hearing of the suit.
7. The Applicant has demonstrated through affidavit evidence that numerous steps were taken to prosecute this suit. The said steps include invitations for the fixing of hearing dates and letters to the Deputy Registrar. However, the court record reflects no single court appearance since the filing of the suit. There is also no evidence of service of the dismissal Notice.
8. Consequently, I allow application. Parties to exchange documents and to comply with pre-trial procedures. The Applicant to take a date for directions within 90 days from date hereof. In default the suit to stand dismissed.
Date, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 26th day of Sept, 2018
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE