[2019] KEHC 6039 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit after being granted multiple opportunities, including the filing of a replying affidavit in response to the notice to show cause. No explanation was provided for the prolonged inactivity, and this was the second time a notice to show...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 6039 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya Independent Petroleum Distributors Association Limited; Defendant: Nairobi City County
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 207 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Notice to Show Cause, Delay in Prosecution, Court Case Management
- 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 Independent Petroleum Distributors Association Limited
Plaintiff
Nairobi City County
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the suit should be dismissed due to prolonged inactivity and lack of explanation by the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit after being granted multiple opportunities, including the filing of a replying affidavit in response to the notice to show cause. No explanation was provided for the prolonged inactivity, and this was the second time a notice to show cause had been issued. The court concluded that the plaintiff had lost interest in the matter and that there was no justification to keep the suit pending. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant
Orders
- The suit is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 207 OF 2013
KENYA INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM
DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION LIMITED..................PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
NAIROBI CITY COUNTY.............................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. A notice to show cause was issued against the parties pursuant to Order 17, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules on 5th February, 2019 in view of the fact that the suit was last in court on 14th November, 2017.
2. When Mr. Ongoto counsel for the Plaintiff appeared before this court on 25th March, 2019, he sought for and was granted leave to file an affidavit in response to the aforesaid notice to show cause. The matter was subsequently scheduled for mention on 4th April, 2019. However, on the scheduled date, neither of the parties was present in court nor was a replying affidavit filed as requested.
3. I have perused the file and noted that this is the second time a notice to show cause has been issued in this matter; the first notice was issued on 10th October, 2017. At the time, Ms. Kabathu holding brief for Mr. Ongoto advocate for the Plaintiff communicated Mr. Ongoto’s interest in prosecuting the matter, stating that the delay was occasioned by the fact that he had lost touch with his client.
4. This court subsequently ordered the Plaintiff to file and serve upon the defendant its witness statements, following which the case would be mentioned on 14th November, 2017 to confirm compliance.
5. On 14th November, 2017, Mr. Ongoto sought more time to comply and was granted a further mention on 7th December, 2017. However, there is no record of what transpired on the said date.
6. Needless to say, no action has been taken in the matter since then and with no explanation. As earlier shown, the plaintiff was granted the opportunity of explaining the delay in the prosecution of its case but has not done so to date.
7. The essence of a notice to show cause is for the relevant party, usually the Plaintiff, to give sufficient cause as to why his or her suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. In this instance, no reason whatsoever has been given notwithstanding the fact that this is the second time a notice of such nature has been issued.
8. From the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the Plaintiff is least interested in prosecuting its case and I find no reason to keep the same pending in court.
9. The upshot is that the suit is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Dated, signed and delivered at NAIROBI this 20TH day of JUNE, 2019
……………………..
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
……………………………. for the Plaintiff
……………………………. for the Defendant