[2009] KEHC 3708 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff's delay in prosecuting the suit was not excessive and was excusable given the reasons provided, including the advocate's maternity leave and the need to consider enjoining additional parties. The court emphasized the complexity and public interest involved in the case, noting that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 3708 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya Pipeline Company Limited; Defendant: Raiply Wood (K) Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 126 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed.
- Judges
- AI Tullu
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Interlocutory Applications, Joinder of Parties
- 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 Pipeline Company Limited
Plaintiff
Raiply Wood (K) Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff's suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to delay in setting the suit down for hearing.
- 2 Whether the delay by the Plaintiff is excusable under the circumstances.
- 3 Whether the interests of justice require the suit and counter-claim to be heard on their merits.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff's delay in prosecuting the suit was not excessive and was excusable given the reasons provided, including the advocate's maternity leave and the need to consider enjoining additional parties. The court emphasized the complexity and public interest involved in the case, noting that the road in question serves both the Plaintiff and the public. Dismissing the suit would not serve the interests of justice, as the Defendant could close the road, adversely affecting public operations. The court also noted that the Defendant, having a substantial counterclaim, could have taken steps to set the suit down for hearing. Therefore, the application for dismissal was...
Court Disposition
Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed.
Orders
- The application dated 6.02.09 is dismissed.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
Civil Case 126 of 2007
KENYA PIPELINE COMPANY LIMITED …………... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAIPLY WOOD (K) LIMITED ……………….…. DEFENDANT
RULING
This is an application by the Defendant under the provisions of Order XVI, Rules 5 (a) for inter alia, an Order that the Plaintiff’s suit be dismissed for want of prosecution.
It is based on the following grounds:-
(i) That pleadings in the suit closed way back in the month of September, 2007.
(ii) That the last time the suit was in Court was on 14th May, 2008 when the Court delivered a ruling on the Plaintiff’s application for injunction.
(iii) That to date the Plaintiff has not taken any positive steps towards setting the suit down for hearing.
(iv) That the Plaintiff has not even filed its list of documents despite being reminded to do so by the Defendant’s Counsel.
(v) That the Plaintiff’s refusal to prepare the suit for hearing is highly prejudicial to the Defendant’s interest as it cannot utilize its property thereby subjecting it to great loss.
(vi) That it is apparent that having secured an injunction in its favour the Plaintiff is no longer interested in pursuing the suit.
The Application is supported by an affidavit sworn by one Philip Varghese, a Director of the Defendant Company.
Application is opposed by the Respondent/Plaintiff which filed an affidavit sworn by Mr. Paul Lilan of the law firm on record acting for the Plaintiff.
The pleadings closed in September, 2007. However, the ruling in respect of the interlocutory applications by the Plaintiff and Respondent was delivered on 14th May, 2008.
Subsequently, there was correspondence between Counsel for the parties. By a letter dated 10/12/08, the Plaintiff’s Advocates informed the Defendant’s advocates that Counsel who had been handling the matter was on maternity leave and requesting for some time to enable another advocate to study the file and respond.
It is noted that the Plaintiff took time to consider enjoining the Former President H. E. Daniel T. Arap Moi as a party in these proceedings. It is also noted that the Kenya Ports Authority requested for the pleadings and subsequently instructed the Plaintiff’s Counsel to represent them and enjoin them as a party in these proceedings.
The Plaintiffs have after the service of the present application filed two applications seeking orders to enjoin the Kenya Ports Authority, the Great Rift Transporters Kenya Limited, his Excellency Daniel Arap Moi and one Nirmal Singh Bassi as parties in this suit.
This Court has taken into account that the Plaintiff is serving a statutory function. The road which is on the subject matter of the suit is used by the Kenya Pipeline Company and the public. It is a permanent road.
If the suit is dismissed, and the injunction lifted the Defendant can possibly close the road. This definitely will affect the operations of the Plaintiff without determination of the contested issues in this suit.
It is noted that the Defendant had an option of setting down the suit for hearing as it also has a substantial counter-claim against the Plaintiff.
In the light of the foregoing, I am of the view that the Plaintiff’s delay in setting down the suit for hearing is not excessive and the reasons given make it excusable.
This is a very complex, intricate and sensitive suit touching on public interest. It is not in the interest of justice and resolution of disputes for the suit to be dismissed on basis of omissions or technicalities. Any delay suffered by the Defendant is compensable in damages, costs and interest if they succeed in their counterclaim.
In all, I hold that it is fair and just that the suit and counter-claim are heard and determined on their merits. I therefore do hereby disallow the application dated 6. 02. 09. It is dismissed. Costs shall be in the cause.
The Plaintiff is directed to prosecute and conclude its interlocutory applications on record expeditiously and set down the suit for hearing as soon as is practicable.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET ON THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2009.
M.K. IBRAHIM
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Chemitei holding brief for Mrs. Masika for the Respondent
Mr. Yego for Mr. Kurgat for the Applicant