[2019] KEELC 4600 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 4600 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent had taken active steps to prosecute the suit, including filing applications, seeking mention dates, and inviting the applicant's advocate to fix hearing dates. The last step was taken less than one year before the filing of the application for dismissal. The applicant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 4600 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ken Hut Cooperative Society Limited; Defendant: Chamos Agencies Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 779 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Suit for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Steps in Prosecution, Court Registry Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Order 17 Rule 2 Steps in Prosecution Court Registry Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ken Hut Cooperative Society Limited

Plaintiff

Chamos Agencies Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Suit for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had taken sufficient steps to prosecute the suit within the stipulated period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had taken active steps to prosecute the suit, including filing applications, seeking mention dates, and inviting the applicant's advocate to fix hearing dates. The last step was taken less than one year before the filing of the application for dismissal. The applicant's interpretation that the one-year period runs from the last court appearance was incorrect. Therefore, the application to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution was premature and not warranted under Order 17 Rule 2(1) and Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 31st August 2017 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.