[2017] KEHC 657 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 657 (KLR)

The court found that although there had been delay in prosecuting the suit, the 1st Plaintiff had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, namely that he was a suspect in a murder case and had been on bond and bail since January 2017. In the interest of justice, the court exercised its discretion not to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 657 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kelvin Mumba Kajiwe; Plaintiff: Salim Kajiwe Washe; Defendant: Said Washe Guro; Defendant: Transparaes (Kenya) Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 232 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Management, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Case Management Delay in Prosecution

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kelvin Mumba Kajiwe

Plaintiff

Salim Kajiwe Washe

Plaintiff

Said Washe Guro

Defendant

Transparaes (Kenya) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Plaintiff should be given more time to prosecute the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there had been delay in prosecuting the suit, the 1st Plaintiff had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, namely that he was a suspect in a murder case and had been on bond and bail since January 2017. In the interest of justice, the court exercised its discretion not to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, instead granting the 1st Plaintiff a further forty-five days to fix the matter for pretrial, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. The application by the 2nd Defendant was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded to the 1st Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The 2nd Defendant's application to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution is dismissed.
  • The 1st Plaintiff is directed to fix the matter for pretrial within forty-five (45) days, failing which the suit shall stand dismissed.