[2018] KEHC 6606 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the suit was not deliberate but resulted from internal miscommunication and staff changes. The court accepted the explanation provided in the affidavits and determined that the interests of justice would be best served by allowing the plaintiff an opportunity...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 6606 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya Forestry Research Institute; Defendant: Boniface Peter Ndegwa; Defendant: Jackson Mugwe Ndegwa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 176 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit not dismissed; plaintiff granted 120 days to prosecute.
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Discretion, Delay in Prosecution
- 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
Kenya Forestry Research Institute
Plaintiff
Boniface Peter Ndegwa
Defendant
Jackson Mugwe Ndegwa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has provided sufficient cause for the delay in prosecuting the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the suit was not deliberate but resulted from internal miscommunication and staff changes. The court accepted the explanation provided in the affidavits and determined that the interests of justice would be best served by allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to prosecute the suit. The court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules in favor of the plaintiff, emphasizing that the matter involves issues of public interest and that justice requires the suit to be heard on its merits. However, the court directed that the suit must be prosecuted within 120 days from the date of the ruling, failing...
Court Disposition
Suit not dismissed; plaintiff granted 120 days to prosecute.
Orders
- The plaintiff shall prosecute the suit within 120 days from the date of this ruling.
- If the suit is not prosecuted within 120 days, it shall stand dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 176 OF 2013
KENYA FORESTRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE.................. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BONIFACE PETER NDEGWA..................................... 1ST DEFENDANT
JACKSON MUGWE NDEGWA................................... 2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1. By virtue of a Notice to Show Cause dated 1st March, 2018 issued under the provisions of Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, this court listed the suit herein for dismissal for want of prosecution on 13th April, 2018. On the said date the Plaintiff filed two Affidavits in Response to the Notice one sworn by KEVIN WAKWAYA and the other by OTIENO CHANGE.
2. In the Affidavit of Kevin Wakwaya, who is the Plaintiff’s Advocate practicing in the firm of Rachier & Amollo Advocates, it was deponed that the Advocate who was handling the file, one Otieno Change left employment of the firm of Rachier Amollo in the year 2015 and while updating his status, he erroneously marked the suit as having been concluded and the file was transferred to the “closed files” section. Annexed is an Affidavit of Otieno Change confirming the same. It was further deponed that the Plaintiff’s Officer who was handling the matter one Shem Ongao left the employment of the Plaintiff in an acrimonious manner. The Plaintiff avers, the failure to prosecute the suit was as a result of internal miscommunication and the issues involved in the suit are matters of public interest touching on misuse of public resources and therefore pleads for the suit not to be dismissed. Annexed to the Affidavit is a letter from the Plaintiff expressing the Plaintiff’s interest in prosecuting the suit.
3. The Defendants did not file a Reply to the Notice.
4. I have considered the Affidavits and the grounds advanced by the Plaintiff. Order 17 Rule 2 empowers this Court to dismiss a suit in which no action has been taken for a period of 12 months. However, if the parties show cause to the satisfaction of this court as to why the same has not been prosecuted, the court can exercise its discretion in favour of the plaintiff. From the explanation given, it is clear that failure to prosecute the suit was not deliberate. In the circumstances of this case, it is possible that there was a breakdown of communication and the Plaintiff may not have been aware of the status of the file.
5. That being the case, this court will exercise its discretion in favour of the Plaintiff and give them a chance to prosecute the suit. This suit was filed in the year 2013 and it will be prudent that the same be prosecuted promptly in the interest of justice and in which case I direct that the same be prosecuted within 120 days from the date of this ruling failing which, it shall stand dismissed.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 3rd Day of May, 2018.
...........................
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In the Presence of
…..................................For the Applicant
………………………. For the Respondent