[2010] KEHC 1790 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit since September 2007, and no sufficient reason was advanced for the delay. The Plaintiff's advocate, Mr. Midwa, was not properly on record and therefore lacked locus standi to file the replying affidavit or seek an adjournment. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1790 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya Grange Limited; Defendant: Turbo Highway Eldoret Ltd.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 532 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant
- Judges
- CM Njagi
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award, Adjournment, Locus Standi
- 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 Grange Limited
Plaintiff
Turbo Highway Eldoret Ltd.
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 under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff's advocate had proper locus standi to act and file documents in the matter.
- 3 Whether the Plaintiff has provided sufficient reason for the delay in prosecuting the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit since September 2007, and no sufficient reason was advanced for the delay. The Plaintiff's advocate, Mr. Midwa, was not properly on record and therefore lacked locus standi to file the replying affidavit or seek an adjournment. The replying affidavit was struck out, and the application for adjournment was dismissed. With no opposition to the application for dismissal, and in light of the clear provisions of Order XVI Rule 5, the court held that the Defendant was entitled to seek dismissal for want of prosecution. The suit was accordingly dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant's costs of the suit and the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Case 532 of 2005
KENYA GRANGE LIMITED ……...………………………. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
TURBO HIGHWAY ELDORET LTD. …………………. DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This application is brought by a notice of motion dated 22nd February, 2010 and taken out under Order XVI Rule 5 (a)of the Civil Procedure Rules,and Section 3Aof the Civil Procedure Act.It seeks an order that this suit be dismissed for want of prosecution and that the costs of the suit be paid by the Plaintiff/Respondent.
The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Alfred King’ori Nyairo, Advocate, and is based on the grounds that –
(a)The Plaintiff filed the suit on 26th September, 2005 and the Defendant filed its defence on 13th January, 2006.
(b)The Plaintiff has shown no interest in prosecuting the matter as no step has been taken to set down the suit for hearing since it was last listed for hearing on 24th September, 2007.
A replying affidavit on record shows that it was sworn and filed in
Court by Churchill Midwa, Advocate, on 30th April, 2010.
Order XVI Rule 5of the Civil Procedure Rules under which this application is made states as follows –
“If, within three months after
(a)the close of the pleadings; or
(b)…..
(c)the removal of the suit from the hearing list; or
(d)the adjournment of the suit generally, the Plaintiff, or the Court of its own motion on notice to the parties, does not set down the suit for hearing, the Defendant may either set the suit down for hearing or apply for its dismissal.”
This matter last came to Court on 24th September, 2007. Since then,
the Plaintiff has never taken any steps to set down the suit for hearing.Consequently, the application now before the Court was filed 5th March, 2010, and came for hearing on 3rd May, 2010. When it was called out for hearing, Mr. Waweru held brief for Mr. Nyairo for the Defendant/Applicant while Mr. Midwa appeared for the Plaintiff/Respondent.Mr. Midwa told the Court he had filed his replying affidavit on 30th April, 2010 but he had not yet served it.He accordingly applied for an adjournment to give him time to get in touch with the Respondent’s erstwhile Advocates at Eldoret.Mr. Waweru opposed the application on the ground that the Respondents were served on 12th March, 2010 and therefore had sufficient time to reply.Mr. Midwa insisted that he had explained his difficulty and it was reasonable that he should be given more time.He therefore requested for an adjournment and applied for another date.
In its ruling, the Court observed that the Court record showed that Mr. Midwa was not properly on the record and therefore had no locus standi in the matter.His application for adjournment was accordingly dismissed even though he had no locus to make it in the first instance.His replying affidavit, which was sworn and filed on 30th April, 2010, was also struck out and the Court directed that the matter do proceed ex parte.Mr. Midwa then left the Court room.He came back as the matter was being called out and Mr. Waweru started arguing the application.Mr. Midwa then handed over a notice of change of Advocate to the court clerk who passed it on to the Court.This confirmed that Mr. Midwa had not been properly on record as earlier observed by the Court; that he should not have addressed the Court or applied for adjournment; and that he had no locus to swear the replying affidavit on the date when it was sworn.For those reasons, the Court declined to give him audience.
Mr. Waweru applied for the suit to be dismissed for want of prosecution.He argued that the suit was instituted in 2005 and the Defendant filed its defence on 13th January, 2005. The matter had last come to Court on 24th September, 2007. Since then, no action had been taken in the matter.It was in the interests of justice therefore, that the suit be dismissed with costs as it was causing the Defendant a lot of anxiety.He asked the Court to allow the application with costs.
Order XVI Rule 5of theCivil Procedureis clear that if no action is taken on a matter within three months after the close of pleadings; or the removal of the suit from the hearing list or the adjournment of the suit generally, the Plaintiff or the Court on its own motion on notice to the parties may set the suit down for hearing and if it does not do so the Defendant is at liberty to set the suit down for hearing or apply for its dismissal.The Defendant herein has elected to come to Court under the second limb and apply for the dismissal of the suit.With the Plaintiff’s replying affidavit having been struck out, the application is not opposed.I find that no good reason has been advanced to show that the suit should not be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.The Plaintiff will also meet the Defendant’s costs of this application.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered atNairobithis 10th day of June, 2010
L. NJAGI
JUDGE